EI Monitoring and Assessment Report 2012/13 VI. EI Income Benefits and Firms
Notice: Refer to the Table of contents to navigate through the EI Monitoring and Assessment Report 2012/13.
1. Firms and EI Utilization
In 2010, of the 986,650 Footnote 126 firms operating in Canada, 314,800 (31.9%) had at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits Footnote 127 . These firms employed 86.9% of the employees in Canada Footnote 128 .
In Table 31, firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits are separated into two categories—net contributors and net beneficiaries—based on their benefit-to-contribution (B/C) ratio Footnote 129 . In a firm with a B/C ratio of less than 1, the employer and employees pay more in EI premium contributions than employees of that firm receive in EI benefits, so the firm is a net contributor to the EI program. Conversely, in a firm with a B/C ratio greater than 1, employees receive more in EI income benefits than the employer and employees pay in EI premiums, so the firm is a net beneficiary of the EI program.
| Number of Firms with EI
(000s) |
% Distribution of Firms with EI | % Distribution of Workers in Firms with EI |
EI Claimants (000s) |
% Distribution of Claimants | % Claimants to Workers of Firms with EI | Frequent Claimants (000s) |
% Distribution of Frequents Claimants | % Frequent Claimants to EI Claimants | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net Contributors (B/C < 1) | 105.9 | 33.7% | 73.3% | 680.3 | 39.0% | 6.3% | 88.4 | 19.9% | 13.0% |
| Net Beneficiaries (B/C ≥ 1) | 208.8 | 66.3% | 26.7% | 1,062.3 | 61.0% | 27.2% | 356.5 | 80.1% | 33.6% |
| Total | 314.8 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 1,742.6 | 100.0% | 11.9% | 444.9 | 100.0% | 25.5% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data
Nearly two thirds (66.3%) of firms with employees receiving EI income benefits, or 208,850 out of 314,800 firms, were net beneficiaries of the EI program. However, these 208,850 firms only represented about a quarter (26.7%) of the workers employed in firms with employees receiving EI income benefits. Compare this with the 73.3% of workers who were employed in the 105,950 (33.7%) of firms with an employee receiving EI income benefits that were net contributors to the EI program. Of the firms that have employees receiving EI income benefits, nearly twice as many are net beneficiaries of the EI program than are net contributors, yet they have about one third the number of workers. These findings indicate that among firms that utilize EI income benefits, firms that are net beneficiaries of the EI program have a significantly higher degree of EI utilization than firms that are net contributors to the EI program.
In 2010, 11.9% of workers in firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits were receiving EI income benefits. Among firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program, 27.2% of workers were receiving EI income benefits, more than four times higher than the 6.3% of workers in firms that were net contributors to the EI program. While it is expected that firms which are net beneficiaries of the EI program would have a higher proportion of employees receiving EI benefits than firms which are net contributors would, it is the amount of the disparity between net beneficiary and net contributor firms that is notable.
Out of 1,742,600 EI claimants, 444,900 Footnote 130 (25.5%) were frequent claimants. The highest proportion of frequent claimants, 80.1%, was found in firms that were net beneficiaries. That figure is 19.2% higher than the 61.0% proportion of total EI claimants found in these firms. The ratio of frequent claimants to total EI claimants was 33.6% among these firms, nearly three times the 13.0% rate for firms that were net contributors.
These findings show a high concentration of frequent claimants among a large number of firms representing a small proportion of employment. While disparities in EI income benefit utilization are expected, it is the degree to which EI utilization are concentrated among a small segment of employees that is significant.
1.1 Firms and EI Utilization, by Firm Location
In most provinces and territories (P/Ts) Footnote 131 , the majority of the firms that operated in 2010 did not utilize EI income benefits. The exceptions were Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nunavut, although their proportions of firms with an employee in receipt of EI income benefits were all below 60%.
As Table 32 shows, relative to their distribution of firms, Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the territories all have higher distributions of firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits, indicating they were overrepresented in their EI utilization. Quebec was overrepresented the most of the P/Ts, accounting for 21.2% of firms yet 28.5% of firms with employees receiving EI income benefits. Quebec was also overrepresented in the distribution of firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program, 31.1%, relative to firms with employees receiving EI income benefits. Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia were underrepresented in both the distribution firms with employees in receipt of EI income benefits and the distribution of firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program.
| Province and Territory | % Firms without EI | % Firms with EI | % Distribution of Total Firms | % Distribution of Firms with EI | % Firms with EI less % Total Firms | % Firms that were Net Beneficiaries | % Net Beneficiaries less % Firms with EI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 43.6% | 56.4% | 1.5% | 2.7% | 1.2% | 3.6% | 0.9% |
| Prince Edward Island | 43.2% | 56.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | 0.4% | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| Nova Scotia | 51.0% | 49.0% | 2.6% | 4.0% | 1.4% | 4.7% | 0.7% |
| New Brunswick | 47.0% | 53.0% | 2.2% | 3.7% | 1.5% | 4.6% | 0.9% |
| Quebec | 57.0% | 43.0% | 21.2% | 28.5% | 7.4% | 31.1% | 2.6% |
| Ontario | 72.2% | 27.8% | 34.9% | 30.4% | -4.5% | 27.7% | -2.7% |
| Manitoba | 70.2% | 29.8% | 3.2% | 3.0% | -0.2% | 2.5% | -0.5% |
| Saskatchewan | 74.0% | 26.0% | 3.4% | 2.8% | -0.6% | 2.5% | -0.3% |
| Alberta | 79.1% | 20.9% | 14.2% | 9.3% | -4.9% | 7.9% | -1.4% |
| British Columbia | 71.5% | 28.5% | 15.8% | 14.1% | -1.7% | 13.6% | -0.5% |
| Yukon | 64.2% | 35.8% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| Northwest Territories | 56.3% | 43.7% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| Nunavut | 41.1% | 58.9% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Outside Canada | 72.0% | 28.0% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Canada | 68.1% | 31.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Table 33 shows the distribution among P/Ts of workers in firms which had at least one employee receiving EI income benefits divided between firms that were net contributors and firms that were net beneficiaries. For Atlantic Canada, Quebec and British Columbia, there were higher proportions of employees from net beneficiary firms compared to the net contributor firms, with the largest variance between the two distributions being observed in Quebec (21.1% of employees were in net beneficiary firms compared to 27.0% in net contributor firms).
| Province and Territory | Distribution of Workers of Firms with EI Benefits | Distribution of EI Claimants | Frequent Claimants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 0.6% | 2.8% | 1.2% | 0.8% | 5.3% | 3.6% | 1.3% | 8.3% | 6.9% |
| Prince Edward Island | 0.1% | 1.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 1.5% | 1.0% | 0.2% | 2.2% | 1.8% |
| Nova Scotia | 2.8% | 4.1% | 3.1% | 3.0% | 5.3% | 4.4% | 3.2% | 7.2% | 6.4% |
| New Brunswick | 1.3% | 4.5% | 2.1% | 1.4% | 6.0% | 4.2% | 1.5% | 9.5% | 8.0% |
| Quebec | 21.1% | 27.0% | 22.7% | 20.1% | 31.0% | 26.7% | 29.7% | 40.9% | 38.7% |
| Ontario | 46.1% | 34.2% | 42.9% | 45.1% | 27.1% | 34.2% | 41.3% | 18.4% | 23.0% |
| Manitoba | 3.6% | 2.5% | 3.3% | 4.2% | 2.2% | 3.0% | 4.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% |
| Saskatchewan | 2.5% | 1.8% | 2.3% | 2.7% | 1.6% | 2.1% | 3.5% | 1.2% | 1.7% |
| Alberta | 10.7% | 9.6% | 10.4% | 10.6% | 8.1% | 9.1% | 6.4% | 4.5% | 4.8% |
| British Columbia | 10.4% | 11.6% | 10.7% | 11.1% | 11.0% | 11.0% | 7.4% | 5.9% | 6.2% |
| Yukon | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Northwest Territories | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Nunavut | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Outside Canada | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Canada | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
In Ontario and the Prairies, the opposite pattern was observed. Of firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits, there were higher proportions of employees in net contributor firms compared to net beneficiary firms. The largest variance between the two distributions is observed in Ontario, with 46.1% of these employees in net contributor firms compared to 34.2% of these employees in net beneficiary firms, an 11.9 percentage-point variance.
Similar results were observed in the distribution of EI claimants between net contributor firms and net beneficiary firms. Atlantic Canada and Quebec had higher distributions of employees in net beneficiary firms than net contributor firms. Quebec had the largest variance, 31.0% versus 20.1%, a difference of 10.9 percentage points. Ontario and the Prairies had higher distributions of employees in net contributor firms relative than in net beneficiary firms. Ontario had the largest variance between the two (45.1% in net contributor firms compared to 27.1% in net beneficiary firms, a difference of 18.0 percentage points). British Columbia and the territories had approximately equal distributions of claimants between net contributor and net beneficiary firms.
| Province and Territory | Firms with EI Income Benefits | Workers of Firms with EI Income Benefits | EI Claimants | Frequent Claimants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 12.3% | 87.7% | 38.3% | 61.7% | 9.1% | 90.9% | 3.8% | 96.2% |
| Prince Edward Island | 12.4% | 87.6% | 22.4% | 77.6% | 5.7% | 94.3% | 2.1% | 97.9% |
| Nova Scotia | 21.4% | 78.6% | 64.9% | 35.1% | 26.6% | 73.4% | 10.1% | 89.9% |
| New Brunswick | 17.4% | 82.6% | 43.8% | 56.2% | 13.3% | 86.7% | 3.8% | 96.2% |
| Quebec | 27.6% | 72.4% | 68.3% | 31.7% | 29.4% | 70.6% | 15.3% | 84.7% |
| Ontario | 39.6% | 60.4% | 78.8% | 21.2% | 51.6% | 48.4% | 35.8% | 64.2% |
| Manitoba | 44.6% | 55.4% | 79.9% | 20.1% | 54.4% | 45.6% | 46.2% | 53.8% |
| Saskatchewan | 40.9% | 59.1% | 79.5% | 20.5% | 51.8% | 48.2% | 41.5% | 58.5% |
| Alberta | 43.8% | 56.2% | 75.5% | 24.5% | 45.5% | 54.5% | 26.3% | 73.7% |
| British Columbia | 35.9% | 64.1% | 71.3% | 28.7% | 39.4% | 60.6% | 23.8% | 76.2% |
| Yukon | 24.6% | 75.4% | 64.6% | 35.4% | 41.1% | 58.9% | 34.4% | 65.6% |
| Northwest Territories | 33.7% | 66.3% | 65.5% | 34.5% | 38.1% | 61.9% | 19.2% | 80.8% |
| Nunavut | 26.3% | 73.7% | 55.8% | 44.2% | 32.3% | 67.7% | 9.4% | 90.6% |
| Outside Canada | 48.7% | 51.3% | 72.7% | 27.3% | 36.6% | 63.4% | 19.3% | 80.7% |
| Canada | 33.7% | 66.3% | 73.3% | 26.7% | 39.0% | 61.0% | 19.9% | 80.1% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
As shown in Table 34, for firms with an employee in receipt of EI income benefits, all P/Ts had more firms that are net beneficiaries of the EI program than are net contributors. However, in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Yukon and Nunavut, the ratio of net beneficiary firms to net contributor firms was greater than the national average while in Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia this ratio was below the national average. In the Northwest Territories it was at the national average.
The proportion of employees in firms with employees in receipt of EI benefits was higher in net contributor firms than in net beneficiary firms in all P/Ts except for Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. However, compared to the national average of 73.3% of employees in net contributor firms and 26.7% in net beneficiary firms, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and the territories had relatively higher proportions of employees in firms that were net beneficiaries and Ontario and the Prairies had relatively higher proportions of employees in firms that were net contributors. British Columbia was very close to the national averages.
| Province and Territory | Ratio of Total Claimants to Workers of Firms with EI | Ratio of Frequent Claimants to Total Claimants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 8.3% | 51.7% | 35.1% | 20.9% | 52.5% | 49.6% |
| Prince Edward Island | 8.8% | 42.2% | 34.7% | 17.7% | 49.3% | 47.5% |
| Nova Scotia | 6.8% | 34.8% | 16.7% | 14.0% | 45.4% | 37.0% |
| New Brunswick | 7.1% | 36.4% | 23.6% | 13.8% | 53.1% | 47.9% |
| Quebec | 6.0% | 31.2% | 14.0% | 19.2% | 44.3% | 36.9% |
| Ontario | 6.2% | 21.6% | 9.5% | 11.9% | 22.8% | 17.2% |
| Manitoba | 7.3% | 24.3% | 10.7% | 14.5% | 20.2% | 17.1% |
| Saskatchewan | 6.9% | 25.0% | 10.6% | 16.8% | 25.4% | 20.9% |
| Alberta | 6.2% | 23.0% | 10.3% | 7.9% | 18.4% | 13.6% |
| British Columbia | 6.8% | 25.8% | 12.2% | 8.6% | 18.0% | 14.3% |
| Yukon | 8.4% | 21.9% | 13.2% | 21.2% | 28.3% | 25.4% |
| Northwest Territories | 7.2% | 22.1% | 12.3% | 10.7% | 27.7% | 21.2% |
| Nunavut | 7.7% | 20.3% | 13.3% | 6.9% | 31.4% | 23.5% |
| Outside Canada | 5.8% | 26.7% | 11.5% | 8.9% | 21.5% | 16.9% |
| Canada | 6.3% | 27.2% | 11.9% | 13.0% | 33.6% | 25.5% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Table 35 illustrates that for firms with employees receiving EI income benefits, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the territories and British Columbia had above-average ratios of EI claimants to workers. The highest ratio was in Newfoundland and Labrador (35.1%), followed by Prince Edward Island (34.7%), which both had ratios of claimants to workers nearly three-times as high as the national average. The third highest proportion of workers receiving EI income benefits was in New Brunswick (23.6%), which was double the national average. The lowest ratio was in Ontario (9.5%), followed by Alberta (10.3%), Saskatchewan (10.6%) and Manitoba (10.7%).
In relation to firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program, the highest proportions of workers receiving EI income benefits were again in Newfoundland and Labrador (51.7%), Prince Edward Island (42.2%) and New Brunswick (36.4%). The territories all had low proportions of workers receiving EI income benefits in net beneficiary firms. Nunavut had the lowest ratio at 20.3%. Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia all had ratios below the national average.
Atlantic Canada and Quebec had higher-than-average shares of frequent claimants, relative to total EI claimants, both among all firms with employees receiving EI income benefits and firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program. The highest proportions were in Newfoundland and Labrador (49.6% and 52.5%, respectively) and New Brunswick (47.9% and 53.1%, respectively) while the lowest proportions were in Alberta (13.6% and 18.4%, respectively) and British Columbia (14.3% and 18.0%, respectively). Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the territories were all below the national average for both firms with employees receiving EI income benefits and net beneficiary firms.
The findings in Table 35 show that, among P/Ts that were overrepresented in EI utilization, there were disproportionate amounts of EI claimants and frequent claimants in net beneficiary firms.
1.2 Firms and EI Utilization, by Firm Size
It was previously observed that nationally the large majority of firms do not utilize EI. When examining EI utilization by firm size Footnote 132 , as illustrated in Table 36, we see that the majority of small-sized firms (73.9%) do not utilize EI benefits. However, in all other categories of firms, a large majority (from 82.4% of small-to-medium sized firms to 99.6% of large-sized firms) do have at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits.
Small firms were underrepresented in EI utilization, as they account for 90.2% of firms in operation yet only 26.1% of firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits. However, among firms that did utilize EI, a higher proportion of small-sized firms (83.5%) were net beneficiary firms. This indicates that among firms with employees who received EI income benefits, small-sized firms were overrepresented in EI utilization.
| Firm Size | % Firms without EI | % Firms with EI | % Distribution of Total Firms | % Distribution of Firms with EI | % Firms with EI less % Total Firms | % Firms that were Net Beneficiaries | % Net Beneficiaries less % Firms with EI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small | 73.9% | 26.1% | 90.2% | 73.9% | -16.3% | 83.5% | 9.6% |
| Small - Medium | 17.6% | 82.4% | 8.0% | 20.6% | 12.6% | 14.0% | -6.6% |
| Medium - Large | 2.6% | 97.4% | 1.5% | 4.5% | 3.0% | 2.1% | -2.4% |
| Large | 0.4% | 99.6% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 0.7% | 0.3% | -0.7% |
| Total | 68.1% | 31.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
The category of firms most overrepresented in EI utilization were small-to-medium sized firms, which accounted for 8.0% of firms yet 20.6% of firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits. Medium-to-large and large-to-medium sized firms were also overrepresented. However, in all three of these categories, the proportion of net beneficiary firms was lower than the proportion of firms with employees receiving EI benefits.
These findings illustrate that while small-sized firms are less likely to utilize EI benefits than all other categories of firms, those small-sized firms that do have a high degree of EI utilization.
| Firm Size | Distribution of Workers of Firms with EI Benefits | Distribution of EI Claimants | Frequent Claimants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | |
| Small | 4.4% | 23.1% | 9.4% | 11.8% | 37.8% | 27.7% | 8.2% | 38.8% | 32.7% |
| Small - Medium | 14.4% | 29.7% | 18.4% | 16.4% | 26.8% | 22.7% | 9.2% | 26.2% | 22.9% |
| Medium - Large | 17.9% | 21.2% | 18.8% | 16.6% | 16.9% | 16.8% | 10.6% | 16.2% | 15.1% |
| Large | 63.4% | 26.0% | 53.4% | 55.2% | 18.5% | 32.8% | 72.0% | 18.8% | 29.4% |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Among firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits, Table 37 shows that small-sized firms were the most overrepresented category of firms in EI utilization, as their proportion of EI claimants (27.7%) and frequent claimants (32.7%) was greater than their proportion of employees (9.4%). They were followed by small-to-medium sized firms. Large-sized firms were the most underrepresented category of firms in terms of EI utilization, having over half the employees (53.4%) yet less than a third of the claimants (32.8%) and the frequent claimants (29.4%). Medium-to-large firms were also underrepresented in EI utilization. Among net beneficiary firms, small-sized firms were overrepresented in EI utilization while large-sized firms were underrepresented. Small-to-medium sized firms and medium-to-large sized firms were overrepresented and underrepresented, respectively, among net beneficiary firms, however the variances between distributions of workers, claimants and frequent claimants were minor.
| Firm Size | Firms with EI Income Benefits | Workers of Firms with EI Income Benefits | EI Claimants | Frequent Claimants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | |
| Small | 25.0% | 75.0% | 34.2% | 65.8% | 16.7% | 83.3% | 5.0% | 95.0% |
| Small - Medium | 54.8% | 45.2% | 57.1% | 42.9% | 28.2% | 71.8% | 8.0% | 92.0% |
| Medium - Large | 68.5% | 31.5% | 69.9% | 30.1% | 38.5% | 61.5% | 13.9% | 86.1% |
| Large | 79.2% | 20.8% | 87.0% | 13.0% | 65.7% | 34.3% | 48.7% | 51.3% |
| Total | 33.7% | 66.3% | 73.3% | 26.7% | 39.0% | 61.0% | 19.9% | 80.1% |
Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Table 38 illustrates that small-sized firms had the highest proportion of net beneficiary firms, employees, claimants and frequent claimants, while large-sized firms had the highest proportion net contributor firms. In small-to-medium and medium-to-large sized firms, most firms were net contributors and the majority of employees for firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits were with net contributor firms. However, in these categories of firms, the majority of claimants and frequent claimants were associated with net beneficiary firms. While this trend reflects the mathematical law of small numbers in the case of analyzing small-sized firms, it points to a useful measure of EI regular benefit utilization with regards to large firms.
Table 39 illustrates that large-sized firms, followed by medium-to-large sized firms, had the lowest ratios of claimants to employees (7.3% and 10.6%, respectively) and frequent claimants to total claimants (22.9% for both). All of these figures were below the national average. Small-sized firms, followed by small-to-medium sized firms, had the highest ratios of claimants to employees (35.2% and 14.7%, respectively) and frequent claimants to total claimants (30.2% and 25.7%, respectively). Among net beneficiary firms, small-sized firms were the only category of firms to have a ratio of claimants to employees (44.6%) above the national average. Small-sized and large-sized firms had slightly higher-than-average ratios of frequent claimants to total EI claimants (34.4% and 34.2%, respectively) while small-to-medium and medium-to-large sized firms had slightly lower-than-average ratios (32.9% and 32.1%, respectively). However, there was little variation among these categories of firms. These findings show that, among firms that are net beneficiaries of the EI program, while small-sized firms have higher proportions of workers receiving EI income benefits and large-size firms have lower proportions, all categories of firm have more-or-less an equal proportion of frequent claimants.
| Firm Size | Ratio of Total Claimants to Workers of Firms with EI | Ratio of Frequent Claimants to Total Claimants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | |
| Small | 17.2% | 44.6% | 35.2% | 8.9% | 34.4% | 30.2% |
| Small - Medium | 7.2% | 24.5% | 14.7% | 7.3% | 32.9% | 25.7% |
| Medium - Large | 5.9% | 21.7% | 10.6% | 8.3% | 32.1% | 22.9% |
| Large | 5.5% | 19.4% | 7.3% | 17.0% | 34.2% | 22.9% |
| Total | 6.3% | 27.2% | 11.9% | 13.0% | 33.6% | 25.5% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
1.3 Firms and EI Utilization, by Industry
As shown in Table 40, the industry with the lowest proportion of firms utilizing EI income benefits was the management of companies and enterprises industry, followed by the professional, scientific and technical services industry and the finance and insurance industry. The industries with the highest proportions were public administration, manufacturing and accommodation and food services.
The construction industry was the most overrepresented industry in terms of EI utilization, as shown both by the variance between the distributions of firms and firms with at least one employee in receipt of EI income benefits (5.1 percentage points) and the variance between the distributions of net beneficiary firms and firms utilizing EI (3.0 percentage points). Based on its variance between the distribution of firms and firms with EI income benefits, the professional, scientific and technical services industry was the most underrepresented in terms of overall EI utilization. The trade industry was the most underrepresented in distribution of net beneficiary firms relative to its distribution of firms utilizing EI.
| Industry | % Firms without EI | % Firms with EI | % Distribution of Total Firms | % Distribution of Firms with EI | % Firms with EI less % Total Firms | % Firms that were Net Beneficiaries | % Net Beneficiaries less % Firms with EI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accommodation and Food Services | 54.0% | 46.0% | 6.2% | 8.9% | 2.7% | 8.4% | -0.5% |
| Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services | 61.7% | 38.3% | 4.8% | 5.7% | 0.9% | 6.3% | 0.6% |
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting | 64.1% | 35.9% | 5.2% | 5.9% | 0.6% | 7.8% | 2.0% |
| Arts, Entertainment and Recreation | 61.0% | 39.0% | 1.7% | 2.0% | 0.4% | 2.4% | 0.4% |
| Construction | 54.8% | 45.2% | 12.3% | 17.4% | 5.1% | 20.4% | 3.0% |
| Educational Services | 62.0% | 38.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 0.2% | 1.2% | -0.2% |
| Finance and Insurance | 82.2% | 17.8% | 2.9% | 1.6% | -1.3% | 1.1% | -0.5% |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 71.1% | 28.9% | 8.3% | 7.5% | -0.8% | 6.5% | -1.0% |
| Information and Culture | 73.7% | 26.3% | 1.1% | 0.9% | -0.2% | 0.7% | -0.2% |
| Management of Companies and Enterprises | 86.0% | 14.0% | 1.3% | 0.6% | -0.7% | 0.5% | -0.1% |
| Manufacturing | 49.8% | 50.2% | 4.9% | 7.7% | 2.8% | 7.1% | -0.5% |
| Mining | 76.0% | 24.0% | 0.9% | 0.7% | -0.2% | 0.6% | -0.1% |
| Professional, Scientific and Technical Services | 84.0% | 16.0% | 12.7% | 6.3% | -6.3% | 5.7% | -0.6% |
| Public Administration | 29.5% | 70.5% | 0.5% | 1.1% | 0.6% | 1.0% | -0.2% |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 81.7% | 18.3% | 4.2% | 2.4% | -1.8% | 2.3% | -0.1% |
| Trade | 64.2% | 35.8% | 14.7% | 16.4% | 1.8% | 14.2% | -2.2% |
| Transportation and Warehousing | 71.6% | 28.4% | 4.7% | 4.1% | -0.5% | 4.4% | 0.2% |
| Utilities | 60.4% | 39.6% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Other Services (except Public Administration) | 76.9% | 23.1% | 12.6% | 9.1% | -3.5% | 9.2% | 0.1% |
| Total | 68.1% | 31.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Table 41 further illustrates the overrepresentation of the construction industry in EI utilization by the variance between the distribution of workers and the distribution of EI claimants among all firms with at least one employee receiving EI benefits (16.2% compared to 6.2%, a 10.0 percentage point variance) and among net beneficiary firms (23.0% compared to 16.1%, a 6.9 percentage point variance). Also, in terms of distribution of frequent claimants relative to total EI claimants, the construction industry was again overrepresented among all firms with at least one employee receiving EI benefits (25.8% compared to 16.2%, a 9.6 percentage point variance) and among firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program (30.4% compared to 23.0%, a 7.4 percentage point variance). Among firms with employees receiving EI income benefits, the trade industry was most underrepresented in both its proportion of EI claimants relative to its proportion of workers (11.9% compared to 16.7%, a 4.8 percentage point variance) and its proportion of frequent claimants relative to its proportion of EI claimants (5.3% compared to 11.9%, a 6.6 percentage point variance). Trade was similarly underrepresented among net beneficiary firms.
| Industry | Distribution of Workers of Firms with EI Benefits | Distribution of EI Claimants | Frequent Claimants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | |
| Accommodation and Food Services | 5.7% | 8.8% | 6.5% | 4.5% | 6.4% | 5.6% | 1.6% | 5.5% | 4.8% |
| Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services | 3.7% | 11.4% | 5.8% | 3.8% | 8.4% | 6.6% | 1.7% | 5.3% | 4.6% |
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting | 0.5% | 4.3% | 1.5% | 0.7% | 8.3% | 5.4% | 1.2% | 12.2% | 10.0% |
| Arts, Entertainment and Recreation | 1.3% | 2.8% | 1.7% | 1.2% | 2.9% | 2.2% | 0.9% | 4.0% | 3.4% |
| Construction | 2.7% | 16.1% | 6.2% | 5.8% | 23.0% | 16.2% | 7.3% | 30.4% | 25.8% |
| Educational Services | 9.8% | 5.6% | 8.7% | 14.6% | 4.5% | 8.4% | 37.3% | 5.8% | 12.1% |
| Finance and Insurance | 5.3% | 0.9% | 4.1% | 3.5% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.3% |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 10.9% | 4.9% | 9.3% | 9.8% | 4.0% | 6.3% | 3.2% | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| Information and Culture | 2.5% | 1.0% | 2.1% | 1.8% | 0.6% | 1.1% | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Management of Companies and Enterprises | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Manufacturing | 9.6% | 13.9% | 10.8% | 11.1% | 13.5% | 12.6% | 11.3% | 11.8% | 11.7% |
| Mining | 1.4% | 1.3% | 1.4% | 1.1% | 1.4% | 1.3% | 1.1% | 1.9% | 1.7% |
| Professional, Scientific and Technical Services | 5.3% | 3.7% | 4.9% | 4.6% | 3.8% | 4.1% | 1.7% | 2.3% | 2.2% |
| Public Administration | 12.9% | 3.3% | 10.3% | 11.4% | 2.8% | 6.2% | 18.4% | 3.7% | 6.6% |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 1.3% | 1.4% | 1.3% | 1.4% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 0.6% | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Trade | 18.4% | 12.0% | 16.7% | 16.0% | 9.3% | 11.9% | 4.7% | 5.4% | 5.3% |
| Transportation and Warehousing | 4.4% | 3.8% | 4.2% | 4.3% | 4.4% | 4.4% | 4.7% | 5.8% | 5.6% |
| Utilities | 1.1% | 0.1% | 0.8% | 0.9% | 0.1% | 0.4% | 1.6% | 0.1% | 0.4% |
| Other Services (except Public Administration) | 2.5% | 4.5% | 3.1% | 3.1% | 4.3% | 3.8% | 1.4% | 2.7% | 2.5% |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
As shown in Table 42, the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry had the highest proportions of firms (88.4%), employees (75.9%), claimants (94.9%) and frequent claimants (97.6%) that were net beneficiaries of the EI program compared to net contributors. The construction industry and the arts, entertainment and recreation industry also had higher-than-average proportions of firms, employees, claimants and frequent claimants within the industries that were net beneficiaries. Utilities had the lowest proportions of firms (42.1%), employees (1.7%), claimants (8.7%) and frequent claimants (11.5%) that were net beneficiaries of the EI program. Other industries with lower-than-average representation among firms that were net beneficiaries compared to firms that were net contributors were the finance and insurance industry, the public administration industry, the information and culture industry and the educational services industry.
| Industry | Firms with EI Income Benefits | Workers of Firms with EI Income Benefits | EI Claimants | Frequent Claimants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | |
| Accommodation and Food Services | 37.6% | 62.4% | 64.1% | 35.9% | 30.9% | 69.1% | 6.8% | 93.2% |
| Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services | 26.8% | 73.2% | 47.4% | 52.6% | 22.3% | 77.7% | 7.5% | 92.5% |
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting | 11.6% | 88.4% | 24.1% | 75.9% | 5.1% | 94.9% | 2.4% | 97.6% |
| Arts, Entertainment and Recreation | 20.4% | 79.6% | 56.9% | 43.1% | 20.6% | 79.4% | 5.4% | 94.6% |
| Construction | 22.3% | 77.7% | 31.3% | 68.7% | 13.9% | 86.1% | 5.6% | 94.4% |
| Educational Services | 43.3% | 56.7% | 82.7% | 17.3% | 67.5% | 32.5% | 61.5% | 38.5% |
| Finance and Insurance | 53.6% | 46.4% | 94.4% | 5.6% | 77.0% | 23.0% | 43.5% | 56.5% |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 42.9% | 57.1% | 85.9% | 14.1% | 61.3% | 38.7% | 34.4% | 65.6% |
| Information and Culture | 49.6% | 50.4% | 87.6% | 12.4% | 64.7% | 35.3% | 33.1% | 66.9% |
| Management of Companies and Enterprises | 43.8% | 56.2% | 84.7% | 15.3% | 44.4% | 55.6% | 9.9% | 90.1% |
| Manufacturing | 38.4% | 61.6% | 65.5% | 34.5% | 34.6% | 65.4% | 19.1% | 80.9% |
| Mining | 42.5% | 57.5% | 74.8% | 25.2% | 33.3% | 66.7% | 12.9% | 87.1% |
| Professional, Scientific and Technical Services | 40.3% | 59.7% | 79.6% | 20.4% | 43.8% | 56.2% | 15.4% | 84.6% |
| Public Administration | 42.7% | 57.3% | 91.6% | 8.4% | 72.3% | 27.7% | 55.0% | 45.0% |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 35.4% | 64.6% | 71.6% | 28.4% | 39.4% | 60.6% | 14.1% | 85.9% |
| Trade | 42.6% | 57.4% | 80.9% | 19.1% | 52.5% | 47.5% | 17.7% | 82.3% |
| Transportation and Warehousing | 29.7% | 70.3% | 76.1% | 23.9% | 38.4% | 61.6% | 16.8% | 83.2% |
| Utilities | 57.9% | 42.1% | 98.3% | 1.7% | 91.3% | 8.7% | 88.5% | 11.5% |
| Other Services (except Public Administration) | 32.8% | 67.2% | 61.0% | 39.0% | 31.4% | 68.6% | 11.4% | 88.6% |
| Total | 33.7% | 66.3% | 73.3% | 26.7% | 39.0% | 61.0% | 19.9% | 80.1% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Table 43 illustrates that the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry had the highest proportions of both EI claimants and frequent EI claimants among firms with EI utilization (41.8% and 47.7%, respectively) and among net beneficiary firms (52.3% and 49.1%, respectively). These observations reflect the seasonal nature of this industry. The construction industry and the arts, entertainment and recreation industry (two industries previously identified as being overrepresented in EI utilization) also had high proportions of frequent claimants relative to all EI claimants, both among firms with employees receiving EI benefits (40.6% and 39.4%, respectively) and among firms that were net beneficiaries of the EI program (44.4% and 46.9%, respectively).
The finance and insurance industry, underrepresented in EI utilization, had the lowest proportion of EI claimants who were frequent claimants, both among firms with an employee in receipt of EI benefits (3.8%) and among net beneficiary firms (9.5%), followed by the information and culture industry (7.0% and 13.2%, respectively) and the health care and social assistance industry (7.6% and 12.8%, respectively).
| Industry | Ratio of Total Claimants to Workers of Firms with EI | Ratio of Frequent Claimants to Total Claimants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | B/C < 1 | B/C ≥ 1 | Total | |
| Accommodation and Food Services | 5.0% | 19.8% | 10.3% | 4.7% | 29.1% | 21.6% |
| Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services | 6.4% | 20.2% | 13.7% | 5.9% | 21.0% | 17.6% |
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting | 8.8% | 52.3% | 41.8% | 22.2% | 49.1% | 47.7% |
| Arts, Entertainment and Recreation | 5.4% | 27.7% | 15.0% | 10.4% | 46.9% | 39.4% |
| Construction | 13.7% | 38.8% | 31.0% | 16.5% | 44.4% | 40.6% |
| Educational Services | 9.4% | 21.8% | 11.6% | 33.2% | 43.2% | 36.5% |
| Finance and Insurance | 4.2% | 21.1% | 5.1% | 2.2% | 9.5% | 3.8% |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 5.7% | 22.0% | 8.0% | 4.3% | 12.8% | 7.6% |
| Information and Culture | 4.6% | 17.7% | 6.2% | 3.6% | 13.2% | 7.0% |
| Management of Companies and Enterprises | 6.2% | 43.0% | 11.8% | 3.5% | 25.0% | 15.4% |
| Manufacturing | 7.3% | 26.3% | 13.9% | 13.1% | 29.5% | 23.8% |
| Mining | 4.9% | 29.2% | 11.0% | 13.1% | 44.2% | 33.9% |
| Professional, Scientific and Technical Services | 5.5% | 27.3% | 9.9% | 4.8% | 20.7% | 13.7% |
| Public Administration | 5.6% | 23.4% | 7.1% | 20.9% | 44.5% | 27.4% |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 6.7% | 26.0% | 12.2% | 5.4% | 21.2% | 15.0% |
| Trade | 5.5% | 21.1% | 8.5% | 3.8% | 19.7% | 11.3% |
| Transportation and Warehousing | 6.2% | 31.8% | 12.3% | 14.2% | 44.0% | 32.6% |
| Utilities | 4.9% | 26.8% | 5.3% | 24.1% | 33.1% | 24.9% |
| Other Services (except Public Administration) | 7.7% | 26.3% | 14.9% | 5.9% | 21.2% | 16.4% |
| Total | 6.3% | 27.2% | 11.9% | 13.0% | 33.6% | 25.5% |
- Source: EI and CRA administrative data.
Overall, this analysis shows that among industries that are overrepresented in EI utilization, there are higher proportions of workers receiving EI benefits and frequent claimants with firms that are net beneficiaries of the EI program.
Page details
- Date modified: