Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report 2014/2015 Chapter II - 2. Assisting Canadians during unemployment: Employment Insurance regular benefits

2.2.1.1 Coverage of Employment Insurance regular benefits, national statistics

According to the EICS, there were 1,259,500 unemployed individuals in Canada (shown as bar U in Chart 17) in 2014. ^{Footnote 34} This represents a decrease of 4.0% from the 1,312,300 unemployed individuals reported in 2013.

The 2014 EICS estimated that, among the 1,259,500 unemployed individuals, 768,000 had paid EI premiums in the previous 12 months before becoming unemployed (referred to as contributors), representing 61.0% of all unemployed people (see Chart 17, blue bar UC), a small decline compared to 2013 (62.5%).

According to the 2014 EICS, there were 491,500 individuals who had not contributed to EI in the previous 12 months (referred to as non-contributors), representing 39.0% of the unemployed (see Chart 17, white bar above UC). Those who had not paid EI premiums include self-employed workers, ^{Footnote 35} unpaid family workers, and individuals who have not worked in the previous 12 months including those who had never worked. As illustrated in Chart 17 (white bar above UC), in 2014, there were 54,900 self-employed and unpaid family workers representing 4.4% of the total unemployed population; in addition, there were 436,600 individuals who did not work in the previous 12 months including those who had never worked, representing 34.7% of the total unemployed population.

Table 14 provides a distribution of unemployed EI contributors and non-contributors. The EI coverage rate (proportion of the unemployed who had paid EI premiums in the previous 12 months) decreased from 70.0% to 61.0% between 2007 (just before the 2008 recession) and 2014. This decrease can be attributed to increases in the proportion of unemployed individuals who had not worked in the previous 12 months, which can be further broken down by i) individuals who had not worked in the previous 12 months, excluding those who had never worked (+5.7 percentage points), and ii) individuals who had never worked (+4.2 percentage points).

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ Self-employed individuals can opt in and subsequently pay EI premiums for special benefits, but they are not eligible for regular benefits.
• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

2.2.1.2 Coverage of Employment Insurance regular benefits, by region

EI coverage rates vary by region, ranging from a high of 79.4% in the Atlantic provinces to lows of 54.7% in Ontario and 59.6% in the Western provinces. Regions with higher coverage rates are those that have a lower proportion of individuals who had not worked in the previous 12 months. As indicated in Table 15, 18.0% of the Atlantic provinces’ unemployed population did not work in the previous 12 months, which consists of those who i) had not worked in the previous 12 months (excluding those who had never worked) and ii) had never worked; the proportions were comparatively higher in Ontario (40.9%) and in the Western provinces (36.5%).

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ The Atlantic provinces comprise Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
• ² The Western provinces comprise Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
• ³ Self-employed individuals can opt in and subsequently pay EI premiums for special benefits, but they are not eligible for regular benefits.
• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

2.2.1.3 Coverage of Employment Insurance regular benefits, by gender and age

In 2014, the male coverage rate was 69.0%, increasing from 64.3% in 2013, which can be attributed to decreases in the number of individuals who had no recent insurable employment and those who had not worked in the previous 12 months (excluding those who had never worked). Conversely, the female coverage rate was 50.1%, decreasing from 60.0% in 2013¬, which is primarily attributed to a significant increase in women who had never worked (+44.5% or +25,600). As a result, the gender gap in the coverage rate increased to 18.9 percentage points in 2014, an increase of 14.6 percentage points compared to 2013. The average gap over the previous five years was 6.2 percentage points.

In 2014, the youth (15 to 24 years) coverage rate decreased to 50.3%, from 54.0% in 2013. Adults (25 years and older) had a 65.3% coverage rate, decreasing slightly from 65.5% in 2013. Coverage rates among youth tend to be significantly lower than those of adults because youth are less likely to have insurable employment, and are more likely to have never worked. In 2014, among unemployed youth, 29.5% had never worked—almost double the proportion witnessed in 2008 (15.7%)—compared to 4.0% for those aged 25 and older.

2.2.2.1 Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits, national statistics

The 2014 EICS estimated that 580,500 unemployed individuals had a valid job separation, making them potentially eligible for EI regular benefits (see Chart 17, blue bar S).

In 2014, there were also 187,400 (14.9%) individuals whose job separation did not meet the EI program’s requirements (see Chart 17, white bar above S). These include unemployed individuals who quit their job to go to school (96,700 or 7.7% of the unemployed population) and those who quit for other reasons without just cause ^{Footnote 36} (90,700 or 7.2% of the unemployed population).

Among the 580,500 unemployed population in 2014 who were covered by the EI program and had a valid job separation, 482,600 had accumulated enough hours to qualify for EI regular benefits (see Chart 17, blue bar E), for an eligibility rate of 83.1% (482,600 / 580,500). The 2014 EI eligibility rate of 83.1% represents a decrease of 2.7 percentage points from 85.8% in 2013 but remains above pre-recession levels (i.e. 82.3% in 2007 and 82.7% in 2006).

The remaining 97,900 of the unemployed population who had contributed to EI in the previous 12 months and had a valid job separation did not accumulate sufficient hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI regular benefits in 2014.

2.2.2.2 Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits, by province

In 2014, eligibility rates ranged from a low of 77.3% in British Columbia to a high of 94.1% in Newfoundland and Labrador (see Chart 18). Compared with 2013 EICS figures, the EI eligibility rate decreased in 7 out of the 10 provinces. The largest decreases occurred in Nova Scotia (-13.6 percentage points) and Alberta (-7.5 percentage points). From 2013 to 2014, in both Nova Scotia and Alberta, a smaller proportion of the unemployed with insurable employment and a valid job separation had accumulated enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI. The drops in eligibility in both Nova Scotia and Alberta may be associated with differences in the composition of workers. Manitoba (+5.8 percentage points), Saskatchewan (+3.1 percentage points) and Newfoundland and Labrador (+0.2 percentage point) showed slight to moderate increases to their eligibility rate.

Show Data Table

	Eligibility rate
	2013	2014
N.L.	93.9%	94.1%
P.E.I.	94.4%	93.4%
N.S.	94.8%	81.2%
N.B.	96.4%	90.5%
Que.	86.1%	84.3%
Ont.	83.1%	81.0%
Man.	85.6%	91.4%
Sask.	82.3%	85.4%
Alta.	87.9%	80.4%
B.C.	81.5%	77.3%
Canada	85.8%	83.1%

• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

Eligibility rates may increase or decrease nationally, and by province and region, over the course of several years. Chart 19 shows that the national eligibility rate increased in 2009, after the 2008 recession. It has since decreased in 2010 and 2011, and increased in 2012 and 2013, before decreasing again in 2014. More information on eligibility trends can be found in section 2.2.2.4.

Show Data Table

	Eligibility rate
	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Canada	82.3%	82.1%	86.2%	83.9%	78.4%	81.9%	85.8%	83.1%
Atlantic	90.6%	87.3%	92.7%	92.8%	91.0%	91.5%	95.1%	89.1%
Quebec	82.0%	80.9%	87.1%	85.4%	76.9%	81.2%	86.1%	84.3%
Ontario	81.8%	78.9%	83.1%	81.0%	74.3%	79.7%	83.1%	81.0%
Western	77.7%	87.1%	87.3%	82.1%	79.6%	80.4%	84.2%	80.9%

• Note 1: The Atlantic provinces comprise Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
• Note 2: The Western provinces comprise Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

Eligibility rates by province and region generally follow the national trends; however, the degree of eligibility varies. For example, from 2007 to 2014, the Atlantic provinces have consistently had higher eligibility rates than the rest of the country, averaging 91.3% during that time. Comparatively, Ontario’s eligibility rate averaged 80.4% during the past eight years, lowest among all regions depicted in Chart 19. Quebec and the Western provinces experienced eligibility rates which more closely resembled the national trends.

2.2.2.3 Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits, by gender and age

In 2014, EI eligibility rates decreased for all demographic groups, except for women and adult women (25 years and older) (see Table 16). The EI eligibility rate for men decreased from 89.8% in 2013 to 84.0% in 2014, while eligibility for women increased from 80.0% to 81.3%. The 5.8 percentage point decrease in the male eligibility rate in 2014 is attributed to i) a decrease in the number of men who had enough hours to qualify for EI regular benefits (-2.0%), and ii) an increase in the pool of men who had insurable employment and a valid job separation (+4.7%).

• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

As reported in previous EI Monitoring and Assessment Reports, gender differences in eligibility rates reflect different employment characteristics among men and women. A higher proportion of men than women hold full-time and/or permanent jobs; women tend to be over-represented among those working in part-time and/or temporary jobs.

The youth (15 to 24 years) eligibility rate has shown large fluctuations between 2012 and 2014, increasing from 45.2% in 2012 to 54.5% in 2013, before decreasing to 44.0% in 2014. The youth eligibility rate has historically been associated with a significantly higher coefficient of variation, ^{Footnote 37} which contributes to the large variations witnessed in recent years, compared to the adult eligibility rate, which is more stable. The significant decrease in the youth eligibility rate in 2014 can be primarily attributed to a decrease in the number youth who had enough hours to qualify for EI regular benefits (-35.2%), among youth who had insurable employment and a valid job separation.

The youth eligibility rate (44.0%) is the lowest among all age groups, consistent with prior year data. A low eligibility rate for youth is associated with the type of work that this group usually performs, which is either part-time and/or temporary work. Therefore, they tend to accumulate fewer hours of work. The adult (25 years and older) eligibility rate was considerably higher (87.9%) than that of youth (15 to 24 years). Higher adult eligibility rates reflect more stable employment and more hours of insurable employment (e.g. permanent full-time work).

It is also important to note that among the 182,600 unemployed youth contributors to EI (who were potentially eligible for EI regular benefits), 65.3% quit without a just cause (45.1% to go to school, and 20.2% for other reasons), compared to 11.7% (2.5% to go to school, and 9.2% for other reasons) among adults (25 years and older) (see Chart 20). The high incidence of quits without a just cause among youth reduces the number of youth who could potentially be eligible for EI regular benefits. Only 34.8% of unemployed youth contributors had a valid job separation, compared to 88.3% for adults.

Show Data Table

		2014
		Youth (15 to 24 years)	Adults (25 years and older)
	Unemployed Contributors to EI	182,600	585,400
Job separation by reason (percentage share)	Quit without a just cause, to go to school	45.1%	2.5%
	Quit without a just cause, other reasons	20.2%	9.2%
	Valid job separation	34.8%	88.3%

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

2.2.2.4 Eligibility trends over the economic cycle

In general, the eligibility rate increases at the beginning of an economic downturn as the unemployed pool is composed of a greater percentage of newly unemployed workers who had relatively long, uninterrupted periods of employment. These workers would have accumulated enough hours to qualify for EI regular benefits. The eligibility rate also changes if there are structural changes in the labour market. When total employment is composed of a higher proportion of full-time employment (and a lower proportion of part-time employment), the incidence of being eligible for EI is higher. This is because full-time workers are more likely to have accumulated enough hours of insurable employment, and as a result, are more likely to be eligible to receive regular benefits.

From 2008 to 2009, as the recession took hold, the national eligibility rate increased to a high of 86.2% in 2009, from 82.2% in 2008 (see Table 17). The increase was attributed to the change in the composition of unemployed EI contributors. A large number of individuals became unemployed with insurable employment, a valid job separation and enough hours of insurable employment, making them eligible to receive EI regular benefits.

Between 2010 and 2011, as the recovery began, the national eligibility rate decreased from 83.9% to a historical low of 78.4%. This was the result of a shift in the composition of unemployed workers, as the proportion of unemployed permanent full-time workers as a share of unemployed workers with insurable employment and a valid job separation, decreased from 50.9% in 2010 to 45.3% in 2011 (see Table 17). This group has historically had a high eligibility rate (90-95%). In contrast, the proportion of unemployed temporary non-seasonal workers as a share of unemployed workers with insurable employment and a valid job separation increased from 24.7% in 2010 to a high of 28.1% in 2011. This group has historically had a lower eligibility rate (60-70%).

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ Too unreliable to be published.
• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

In 2013, the eligibility rate increased to 85.8% from 81.9% in 2012, due to a combination of factors. First, the proportion of unemployed permanent full-time workers—whose eligibility rate was 95.0% in 2013—as a share of unemployed workers with insurable employment and a valid job separation, increased by almost a percentage point (from 45.1% to 45.8%) between 2012 and 2013. Second, the number of unemployed who quit their job to go to school increased from 74,200 in 2012 to a recent high of 93,300 in 2013, representing an increase of 25.7%. As previously indicated, unemployed individuals with an invalid job separation are excluded when calculating eligibility rates and the exclusion of this group reduced the pool of unemployed workers who are less likely to have sufficient hours to be eligible for benefits. Finally, the proportion of unemployed temporary seasonal workers as a share of unemployed workers with insurable employment and a valid job separation increased from 18.4% in 2012 to 19.6% in 2013, while their eligibility rate increased from 75.6% to 85.0%. In 2012, the eligibility rate for temporary seasonal workers was lower than usual but returned to a normal level in 2013.

In 2014, the eligibility rate decreased to 83.1% from 85.8% in 2013, due to multiple reasons. First, the proportion of unemployed permanent full-time workers—whose eligibility rate was 90.1% in 2014—as a share of unemployed workers with insurable employment and a valid job separation, decreased from 45.8% in 2013 to 43.5% in 2014, while their eligibility rate decreased by almost 5 percentage points. Secondly, the proportion of unemployed temporary non-seasonal workers—whose eligibility rate was 74.5% in 2014—as a share of unemployed workers with insurable employment and a valid job separation, increased from 25.9% to 28.8% in 2014, while their eligibility rate decreased by 1.5 percentage points. This group has historically had a lower eligibility rate (60-75%), especially compared to permanent full-time workers (90-95%). Finally, there was a decline to the eligibility rate for permanent part-time workers (-5.2 percentage points, from 71.4% in 2013 to 66.2% in 2014).

As mentioned previously, poor economic conditions can result in a large pool of unemployed workers who have accumulated sufficient hours of insurable employment with a valid job separation, and are thus eligible for EI. As a result, higher eligibility rates tend to prevail during an economic slowdown or recession. However, during periods of economic recovery, the eligibility rates tend to decline, while during periods of more stable economic conditions, the eligibility may remain stable or even increase. This paradox highlights the fact that diverse compositions of the unemployed population accumulate varying degrees of hours of insurable employment from year-to-year, which contribute to fluctuations in eligibility rates, as witnessed over the past few years.

A recent study ^{Footnote 38} using the Canada Out-of-Employment Panel (COEP) Survey showed that individuals’ work patterns influence their likelihood of being eligible for EI regular benefits. The study found that full-time permanent job separators had the highest eligibility rate, which can be attributed to having the highest average number of hours of insurable employment. Non-permanent job separators had the lowest eligibility rate, due to fewer hours worked, on average.

Another recent study ^{Footnote 39} , ^{Footnote 40} was conducted based on the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID), in part, to assess the impact of changing working hours on EI eligibility, from 1996 (prior to the January 1997 EI change in the eligibility criteria, from a weeks-based system to an hours-based system) to 2010. The results suggest that, from 1996 to 2010 and among all workers combined, average weekly hours have only changed minimally, fluctuating between 33.5 and 35 hours. The study concluded that the eligibility rate was relatively stable over the past two decades. Due to the differences in hours worked, from 1996 to 2010, full-time workers had a significantly higher eligibility rate compared to those who were not, while youth (aged 16-24) and less educated workers (less than a high school diploma) had lower eligibility rates compared to their older and more educated counterparts.

2.2.2.5 Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits, from records of employment

In addition to the EICS, another source often used to examine the eligibility of individuals for EI regular benefits is the Record of Employments (ROE). A recent evaluation study ^{Footnote 41} was conducted on ROE-Based Measures and EI Eligibility. ^{Footnote 42} The population and methodology used to determine eligibility rates in this ROE study differ from other eligibility measures (e.g. EICS). For example, eligibility rates cited in the ROE study are based on individuals with one or multiple ROEs, regardless if the individuals are unemployed or currently working in another job. In contrast, the EICS eligibility rate is based on the unemployed population that has recently contributed to EI and had a valid job separation. In addition, while the ROE is a form that an employer must issue to an employee leaving a job, regardless of the reason, approximately 30% of job separations have missing ROE forms. As a result, ROE-based eligibility rates may be underestimated since an individual’s complete employment history (i.e. all hours of insurable of employment) is not always taken into consideration, and the rates should be interpreted with caution when compared to other eligibility results, such as the EICS.

In this ROE-based study, the sample was based on 10% of individuals with ROEs submitted between 2001 and 2014. The study examined the percentage of job separators who were laid off due to shortage of work in the previous 52 weeks and who had accumulated enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI regular benefits, based on the Variable Entrance Requirement (VER). Based on the VER, individuals living in EI economic regions with high unemployment rates require fewer hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits than do people in regions with lower unemployment rates.

The study found that regions with high unemployment rates had a larger proportion of job separators with sufficient hours to meet the entrance requirements than did regions with low unemployment rates. In 2014, in regions with an unemployment rate of 13.1% or higher, 83% of job separators with a layoff due to shortage of work accumulated enough hours of work to qualify for EI regular benefits. Conversely, only around 65% of job separators accumulated enough hours of work to qualify for EI regular benefits in regions of lower unemployment (unemployment rate below 8.0%).

In addition, the study determined that 67.1% of all job separators who were laid off due to shortage of work, had enough hours from their combined ROEs to be eligible for EI regular benefits in 2014. From 2001 to 2014, the figure ranged between 67.1% and 72.1%.

2.2.2.6 Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits, among the employed population

A study ^{Footnote 43} , using the Labour Force Survey (LFS), ^{Footnote 44} measured the proportion of employees in Canada who would have had sufficient hours of insurable employment over the qualifying period to meet variable entrance requirements—ranging from 420 to 700 hours ^{Footnote 45} —if all workers had been laid off in the year studied (i.e., during the 12 months of the calendar year).

The LFS-based simulations suggest that 88.5% of individuals who were working as paid employees in 2014 would have been eligible for regular benefits had they lost their job. The LFS-based simulations suggest that the proportion of employed individuals with sufficient hours to claim regular benefits had they lost their job varied only slightly across the country in 2014, ranging from a high of 90.3% in New Brunswick to 86.4% in Alberta. Eligibility rates from the LFS-based simulation are generally higher than those of the EICS because the LFS-based simulation is based on the employed population, which includes participants who likely have more hours of insurable employment compared to the unemployed population.

Men would have had a slightly higher eligibility rate (89.7%) than women (87.2%) had they lost their job in 2014, due to the fact that part-time employment is more common among women. Employed full-time workers would have been eligible to receive regular benefits 93.6% of the time had they lost their job, compared to 61.0% for employed part-time workers. In addition, 91.8% of employed adults (25 to 69 years) would have been eligible to receive regular benefits had they lost their job, compared to 65.5% for youth (19 to 24 years). Employed part-time workers and youth are less likely to qualify for regular benefits because they are less likely to accumulate enough hours of insurable employment over the qualifying period (usually 52 weeks preceding a claim). In addition, employed youth are more likely to be in school, and since they are newer to the labour force, they may face higher entrance requirements (910 hours under the NERE provision ^{Footnote 46} ) to qualify for EI regular benefits.

2.3.2.1 The impact of the variable best weeks provision on the Employment Insurance economic regions

The proportion of regular claims established in the 25 former B14 pilot regions remained consistant at 37% in Canada in 2014/2015. Since 2012/2013, 9 of the 25 former B14 pilot regions, on average, continued to have an unemployment rate of 13.1% or greater, which has resulted in no change in the number of best weeks used to calculate their weekly regular benefit rate (i.e., they continued to use 14 weeks). However, since the introduction of the VBW provision, 16 regions experienced an increase in the number of best weeks used to calculate their weekly benefit rate as their local labour market improved. As of 2014/2015, one region experienced an increase of one to two weeks, ten regions experienced an increase of three to five weeks, and five regions experienced an increase of six weeks or more. ^{Footnote 56}

Due to the fact that the VBW provision changed how the weekly benefit rate was calculated, a key metric to assess the relative impact of the VBW provision is the average weekly regular benefit rate. The average weekly regular benefit rate of former B14 pilot regions continued to rise in 2014/2015, and converged with that of non-pilot regions. The convergence of the average weekly regular benefit rate between former pilot and non-pilot regions is consistent with the objective of enhancing fairness in calculating the weekly benefit under the VBW provision (see Chart 26). In 2014/2015, in former B14 pilot regions, the average weekly regular benefit rate increased by $15 to $431, up almost a full percentage point over the year before (3.6% vs. 2.5%). This growth in the average weekly benefit rate in former B14 pilot regions is slightly higher than the growth in the MIE in 2014 (2.5%), suggesting that the average impacts of changing from B14 to VBW were minimal in these regions. Analysis suggests that the majority of claims established in former B14 pilot regions in 2014/2015 (75%) would have encountered no change in their weekly benefit if the B14 calculation methods were still in place. The negative impacts associated with changing from the B14 to VBW were limited for other claims established in former B14 pilot regions. Of those claims that were negatively impacted, the weekly regular benefit rate in former B14 pilot regions would have been approximately $15 higher (or 3.5%), on average, than what they received under the VBW calculation method.

Show Data Table

	Average Weekly Regular Benefit Rate ($)
	Former Best 14 Pilot Regions	Former Non-pilot Regions
2009/2010	374	365
2010/2011	377	367
2011/2012	392	379
2012/2013	406	391
2013/2014	416	421
2014/2015	431	436

• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

As expected, the average weekly regular benefit rate grew more significantly in former non-pilot regions since the VBW provision came into effect in April 2013; specifically, in 2013/2014, the fiscal year following the introduction of VBW, the average weekly regular benefit rate in former non-pilot regions increased by 7.8% (see Chart 27). This is a growth rate that is almost three times as large as that experienced in former pilot regions over the same period. This is mainly due to the fact that claimants in former non-pilot regions are now able to use their best weeks from the 52 weeks preceding the claim to calculate their weekly benefit. By contrast, before the VBW provision came into effect, their weekly benefit rate was determined by dividing their insurable earnings accumulated during the 26-week period before the establishment of the claim by the greater of the number of weeks the claimant worked in this period or the minimum divisor, which varied between 14 and 22 depending on the monthly regional unemployment rate. The VBW calculation method benefits those who have inconsistent work patterns (i.e., weeks of low earnings and weeks of high earnings) as these EI claimants are now able to exclude weeks with lower earnings or no earnings from the calculation of their weekly benefit. In 2014/2015 the growth rate of the average weekly benefit rate in former non-pilot regions resembled that of former pilot regions, at roughly 3.0%, which is marginally higher than the growth in the MIE in 2014 (2.5%).

Show Data Table

	Growth in the Average Weekly Regular Benefit Rate ($)
	Formet Best 14 Pilot Regions	Former Non-pilot Regions
2010/2011	2.0%	0.7%
2011/2012	3.9%	3.3%
2012/2013	3.6%	3.2%
2013/2014	2.4%	7.7%
2014/2015	3.3%	3.1%

• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

As shown in Table 21, when former B14 pilot regions are broken down by the change in the number of best weeks from 2012/2013 to 2014/2015, very little difference is present between the groupings for the change in the best weeks in regards to the average weekly regular benefit rate. The difference among the groupings was more important in the year after the implementation of the VBW provision (i.e., 2012/2013 vs. 2013/2014). For the most part, regions experiencing a change in the best weeks saw an increase in their weekly regular benefit rate similar to the growth in the MIE over the same time (5.5%). All 25 former pilot regions experienced growth in their average weekly regular benefit rate from 2012/2013 to 2014/2015. Table 21 shows, however, that as the change in the number of best weeks increases, the percentage change in the average weekly regular benefit rate decreases. For example, regions that did not experience a change in the number of best weeks saw their average weekly regular benefit rate increase by 7.0%, while regions with an increase of 6 or more weeks experienced an increase of 4.3% in their average weekly regular benefit rate.

• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

The introduction of the VBW provision has not resulted in a significant change in insurable hours of work accumulated before the termination of employment. Indeed, claimants in former B14 pilot regions had worked on average 1,287 hours in 2014/2015, which represented an increase of only 17 hours (or 1.3%) compared to 2012/2013.

Overall, the minimal effect of the VBW provision on insurable hours is a result of the fact that the majority of claimants (greater than 90%) qualify for EI with more than 700 insurable hours, indicating that the majority of individuals had substantial insurable employment prior to the introduction of the VBW provision.

2.3.3.1 Working while on claim pilot projects ^{Footnote 58}

The first WWC pilot project (Pilot Project 8) was introduced in 23 EI Economic Regions on December 11, 2005 and ran until December 6, 2008. The purpose was to test whether allowing Employment Insurance (EI) claimants to earn more income while claiming EI benefits would encourage them to accept more available work while receiving EI benefits. Under this WWC pilot, the amount EI claimants could earn while on claim without a reduction in their benefits, was increased to the greater of $75 or 40% of their weekly benefit, with benefits reduced dollar for dollar beyond this threshold. EI claimants not in the 23 EI Economic Regions continued to be subject to an allowable earnings threshold of $50 or 25% of their weekly EI benefit based on the WWC provision in the Employment Insurance Act.

The pilot project was re-introduced (Pilot Project 12) on December 7, 2008 on a national level (in all EI economic regions) and ran until August 6, 2011. Budget 2011 announced a new pilot (Pilot Project 17) under the same parameters of the previous pilot to assess the effectiveness of the pilot during a period of economic recovery and a full economic cycle. This pilot began on August 7, 2011, and ran until August 4, 2012.

As part of the Budget 2012, a new national WWC pilot project (Pilot Project 18) was introduced on August 5, 2012. Under this new WWC pilot project, a claimant’s benefits are reduced by 50% of his or her earnings while on claim, starting with the first dollar earned, until the claimant's earnings reach 90% of the average weekly earnings used to establish his or her weekly benefit rate. At that point, the claimant’s benefits are reduced dollar for dollar, to ensure claimants do not receive more in earnings and benefits than they would have earned working full time. This pilot concluded on August 1, 2015, and was replaced by Pilot Project 19, which kept the same provisions as Pilot Project 18.

A key difference between the Pilot Project 17 and Pilot Project 18 provisions is in the total income (EI benefits and employment income) claimants earn at different earnings levels: for lower earnings, generally two days of work or less (80% of the benefit rate), Pilot Project 17 provides more total income; however, for higher earnings Pilot Project 18 provides more total income. After the new WWC Pilot Project 18 began, some claimants indicated they could not find additional work beyond approximately one day per week and they were experiencing difficulty transitioning to the new pilot rules. As a result, eligible EI claimants who had earnings while on claim between August 7, 2011, and August 4, 2012, and were covered by the provisions of the previous WWC pilot project (Pilot Project 17), have the option to revert to the rules of the previous WWC pilot project. Once a claimant reverts, the Pilot Project 17 rules apply for the duration of the claim or until August 2016 (i.e. when Pilot Project 19 is set to expire), whichever is earlier. So long as claimants have chosen to revert in all previous claims, they are given the opportunity to revert on subsequent claims. However, once a claimant does not revert, they no longer have the option to revert.

The option to revert was operational on January 6^th, 2013. As of March 31, 2015, a total of 19,144 claims had reverted. The number of claims that reverted peaked during the first month, followed by an immediate and significant decline, before finally it leveled off at this lower level. Of all claims that reverted to the parameters of the previous WWC pilot (earnings allowance of $75 or 40% of benefits), over 90% were located in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. According to internal estimates, the provincial breakdown is as follows: Newfoundland 11%, Nova Scotia 7%, New Brunswick 15%, Prince Edward Island 5%, Quebec 53%, Ontario 6 %, and British Columbia 1%; all other provinces and territories were below 1%. ^{Footnote 59}

As of March 31, 2015 only 12,029 claimants had taken advantage of the option to revert, out of a pool of 773,778 who had the opportunity – namely those who had earnings between August 7, 2011, and August 4, 2012. It should be noted that this pool of claimants who are considered to have had the opportunity to revert includes a large number of claimants who had earnings while on claim during the August 2011 to August 2012 period, but have not actually claimed during the Pilot Project 18 or 19 period, and therefore cannot technically be considered reverters. Nevertheless, the low number of reversions seems to indicate that many claimants were either indifferent or found the new WWC provisions beneficial. Findings from a focus group study in 2014, ^{Footnote 60} , ^{Footnote 61} however, would suggest that some claimants did not clearly understand the new WWC provisions and the option to revert. For instance, while 70% of respondents to a telephone questionnaire claimed they were aware of the new WWC provisions, some of these were found to have only a vague understanding of the actual changes that had been introduced. In addition, just over 10% of telephone respondents who were eligible to revert were aware of the option to revert. However, some of these respondents who claimed awareness of the option to revert did not think they were eligible when in fact they were, demonstrating a lack of true understanding. These misperceptions suggest that the low rate of reversion may not be entirely driven by claimants’ preferences but may reflect a lack of understanding.

2.3.3.2 Claims utilizing working while on claim provision ^{Footnote 62}

This section examines the regular claims established in fiscal year 2013/2014 that worked while on claim at least once, regardless of the amount of time worked during the claim and who these claimants worked for. The analysis in this section (2.3.3.2) focuses on completed claims only, and therefore is delayed one year (to 2013/2014). The extent or intensity to which regular claimants worked while on claim is analyzed in the next section (2.3.3.3).

EI administrative data indicate that among all EI regular claims established in 2013/2014, a total of 691,870 involved at least one week worked while on claim, which represented 51% of all regular claims established that year (see Table 22). On average, these claims worked 11.6 weeks while on claim. The total number and proportion of those who worked while on claim have been following a downward trend since 2009/2010, when a high of 926,560 regular claims involved worked while on claim. This downward trend is analyzed at the end of section 2.3.3.3.

• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

The proportion of regular claims with at least one week worked while on claim varies according to industry and age. The Educational Services industry had the highest proportion of working claimants in 2013/2014 at 60% of regular claims, followed by Construction at 58%. Conversely, Finance and Insurance had the lowest proportion of working claimants at just 33% of regular claims. The high number of working claimants in the Educational Services and Construction industries reflects the seasonality of these industries, a characteristic often related with working while on claim (as discussed in the subsequent paragraph). Older workers (55 years and older) who established a regular claim in 2013/2014 were the least likely to have worked at least one week while on claim, with an incidence of just 39%. This compares to 55% for those aged under 55 years old. Despite noteworthy variation by the above socio-demographic characteristics, working while on claim varied little by gender: the proportion of men receiving regular benefits who took advantage of the WWC provision was 50%, very similar to that of women at 53%.

Regions also diverged significantly with respect to their proportion of claims with at least one week worked. Among regular claims established in the Atlantic provinces in 2013/2014, 60% involved working while on claim, as did 59% of EI regular claims established in Quebec. In the rest of Canada, just 44% of regular claims established in 2013/2014 involved working while on claim. This regional variability in the frequency of working while on claim could be influenced by a number of factors, including the Atlantic province and Quebec’s above average proportion of seasonal ^{Footnote 63} and frequent claimants, as well as higher average unemployment rates ^{Footnote 64} -- characteristics that are associated with higher rates of working while on claim. Specifically, across Canada, the proportion of seasonal workers who have at least one week worked while on claim was 60%, compared to non-seasonal workers with 47%. Similarly, claims made by frequent claimants included working while on claim in 60% of regular claims across Canada, compared to only 48% and 49% for claims made by long-tenured workers and occasional claimants, respectively. Finally, in 2013/2014, among EI economic regions with unemployment rates of 10.0% or lower, 49% of regular claims involved working while on claim, while among regions with unemployment rates higher than 10.0%, 60% of regular claims involved working while on claim.

For regular claims established in 2013/2014 involving work while on claim, the average actual duration was 18.7 weeks of regular benefits paid, lower than the 20.2 weeks for those regular claims that did not include any work while on claim (see Table 23). However, the average maximum duration for those claims with working while on claim was 32.2 weeks, higher than the 31.4 weeks provided to those without working while on claim. These differences in average maximum and actual duration may indicate that those working while on claim use less benefits, regardless of a higher average maximum duration.

• ¹ Includes claims for which at least $1 of regular benefits was paid.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

The average actual duration of those claims with working while on claim did not differ by age nor gender. On the contrary, it varied significantly across regions, due to the high correlation of regional unemployment rates and average maximum duration, as well as by industry, as it does for all regular benefits. ^{Footnote 65} Specifically, the regions in Canada ranged from a low of 15.1 weeks in Alberta to a high of 31.1 weeks in Nunavut, while the industries ranged from 13.4 weeks in the Educational Services industry to 23.0 weeks in the Finance and Insurance industry. A 2015 study ^{Footnote 66} looking at pure regular claimants ^{Footnote 67} who worked while on claim found that the longer the duration of a claim, ^{Footnote 68} the more likely the claimant was to work while on claim and to work for more than one employer. Specifically, of claims lasting 14 weeks or less, 48% worked while on claim and 14% worked for more than one employer. Conversely, those claims lasting 45 weeks or more had 67% of claimants working while on claim, with 30% working for more than one employer. The study also found that the number of weeks worked as well as the number of “full-time” weeks (defined as a claimant having their benefits reduced to zero and therefore deferring the week) also increased with the duration of the claim.

The above study also found that 74% of pure regular claimants who worked while on claim did so for a single employer, and 91% of hours worked while on claim were for one employer. In addition, the average working claimant worked approximately one third of the time (measured in weeks). Finally, the study found that 80% of working claimants had worked for the same employer previous to their claim, while 82% stayed with the same employer they worked for on claim after their claim had ended. In total, 95% of working claimants worked at least one week for the same employer before or after their claim. A subset of these claimants worked both before and after the claim, which made up 65% of working claimants. These statistics suggest that many claimants are being laid-off by their employer during a temporary work-shortage, with the possibility of returning intermittently during their EI claim when their employer requires it, and returning full-time when the work-shortage subsides. This could explain the high correlation of seasonal industries and claims, which produce and follow work-shortage trends, with working while on claim.

2.3.3.3 Weeks of work while on claim ^{Footnote 69}

This section examines the Working While on Claim provision from the perspective of weeks worked while on claim, focusing primarily on regular claims. The analysis examines all benefits paid for fiscal year 2014/2015 and whether or not employment income was reported during a week in which a claimant received EI benefits, regardless of when the claim was established.

EI administrative data indicate that among all EI benefit weeks paid in 2014/2015, 14% of weeks paid involved the claimant working while on claim. For regular claims, the proportion stood at 24% and was much higher than fishing, parental and compassionate care benefits. As Chart 28 shows, since 2011/2012, the proportion of weeks worked while on claim declined for all types of benefits.

Show Data Table

	Regular benefit weeks	Fishing benefit weeks	Parental and compassionate care benefit weeks
2004/2005	22%	4%	4%
2005/2006	25%	12%	4%
2006/2007	26%	13%	3%
2007/2008	27%	12%	3%
2008/2009	25%	12%	3%
2009/2010	25%	13%	3%
2010/2011	26%	13%	3%
2011/2012	27%	12%	3%
2012/2013	27%	11%	3%
2013/2014	25%	11%	2%
2014/2015	24%	10%	2%

• ¹ Data are based on the weeks worked while on claim during this period, regardless of when the claim was established.
• ² Excludes weeks worked while on claim with missing earnings data, which represent less than 1% of the weeks.
• Note: Excludes claims that reverted to Pilot Project 17.
• Source: ESDC Employment Insurance (EI) Adminsitrative Data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI adminsitrative data.

Table 24 shows the proportion of weeks worked while entitled to receive regular benefits, broken down by socio-demographic characteristics over the past five fiscal years. The number of weeks worked vary in a very similar manner to the number of claims which had at least one week worked. Again, those under the age of 55 had a higher proportion of weeks worked while on claim, while those aged 55 years and over have a smaller proportion of weeks worked while on claim. In addition, the proportion of weeks worked while on claim varies significantly by province and territory. Again, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec have the highest proportion of regular weeks worked while on claim than the rest of Canada. In addition, British Columbia and the Yukon have higher proportions of weeks worked while on claim than the other Western provinces and the territories, but figures remain lower than the national average.

• ¹ Data are based on the weeks worked while on claim during the specified period, regardless of when the claim was established.
• ² Excludes weeks worked while on claims with missing earnings data, which represent less than 1% of the weeks.
• ³ Excludes claims that reverted to Pilot Project 17
• ^r Revised
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

The WWC rules have varied over the last three years and the following analysis compares results of these WWC pilot projects. Table 24 shows that the changes in pilot projects have had little effect on different socio-demographic groups- there is only a modest upward trend in the proportion of weeks worked with the introduction of Pilot Project 17 and a modest downward trend following the introduction of Pilot Project 18, consistent across all groups. Under Pilot Project 18, 25% of weeks were worked while on regular claim between August 2012 and March 2015. ^{Footnote 70} This is lower than for Pilot Project 17, running from August 2011 to August 2012, under which the proportion of weeks worked was 28%.

Table 25 presents the distribution of weeks worked based on the earnings in relation to the claimants’ weekly benefit rate. With the implementation of Pilot Project 18, there has been a shift in the distribution towards higher earnings, despite the downward trend in total number of weeks worked. In other words, there has been an increase in the intensity of work compared to the previous WWC pilot, implying that the average number of hours or days worked while on claim per week has increased. As shown in Table 25, the percentage of claims with earnings greater than 40% of their weekly benefit rate (the allowable earnings threshold under the previous pilots) increased, from between 81% to 84% under Pilot Project 17 to between 87% and 90% under Pilot Project 18.

• ¹ Data are based on the weeks worked while on claim during the specified period, regardless of when the claim was established.
• ² Excludes weeks worked while on claims with missing earnings data, which represent less than 1% of the weeks.
• ³ Excludes claims that reverted to Pilot Project 17.
• ⁴ Percentages with decimals are rounded up or down. For example, if a claimant earned 25.3% of his or her EI benefit in a given week, that week would fall under the 25% or less category.
• ^r Revised.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

Chart 29 also shows the distribution of earnings from Table 25, in smaller increments, under the three different WWC regimes: the legislation, the provisions of Pilot Projects 12 and 17 and the provisions of Pilot Project 18. Under the legislation and Pilot Projects 12 and 17, 25% and 40% earning allowances did not reduce EI benefits until claimants earned more than those thresholds, after which earnings were deducted from benefits dollar for dollar. This provided a strong incentive to work up to the threshold amount (25% or 40%) but no incentive to work beyond it, since claimants receive no additional income (combined EI benefits and earnings) from working while on claim until they’ve surpassed their weekly benefit rate. Under the current pilot project, a claimant’s combined EI benefits and earnings from working while on claim rise consistently for every hour of work he or she accepts for significantly more earnings– specifically until they have surpassed 90% of their weekly benefit rate. As depicted in Chart 29, behavioural impacts of the incentives are suggested by the two distinct peaks in the data for the legislation and Pilot Projects 12 and 17, where claimants reached the respective thresholds. It also suggests a change in claimant behaviour under the current pilot project: there is now a smoother distribution of weeks worked while on claim, which demonstrates a more consistent incentive to accept available work, and therefore an increase in work intensity.

Show Data Table

Earnings as a Share of EI Weekly Benefit Rate	Legislation (April 2004 to November 2005)	Pilot Projects 12 and 17 (December 2008 to July 2011)	Pilot Project 18 (August 2012 to March 2015)
0%-10%	1.1%	1.8%	1.4%
11%-20%	3.2%	3.1%	2.3%
21%-30%	6.5%	5.0%	3.2%
31%-40%	3.9%	8.7%	3.9%
41%-50%	2.8%	3.9%	2.8%
51%-60%	2.2%	2.5%	2.5%
61%-70%	2.2%	2.3%	2.5%
71%-80%	2.2%	2.2%	2.5%
81%-90%	2.1%	2.1%	2.5%
91%-100%	2.2%	2.1%	2.6%
101%-110%	2.2%	2.2%	2.7%
111%-120%	2.2%	2.3%	2.9%
121%-130%	2.5%	2.4%	3.0%
131%-140%	2.7%	2.7%	3.4%
141%-150%	3.1%	3.1%	3.8%
151%-160%	3.6%	3.4%	4.3%
161%-170%	4.2%	4.1%	4.9%
171%-180%	5.2%	5.3%	6.0%

• ¹ Data are based on the weeks worked while on claim during the specified period, regardless of when the claim was established.
• ² Excludes weeks worked while on claim with missing earnings data, which represent less than 1% of the weeks.
• ³ Excludes claims that reverted to Pilot Project 17.
• ⁴ Percentages with decimals are rounded up or down. For example, if a claimant earned 25.3% of his or her EI benefit in a given week, that week would fall under the 25% or less category. Percentage above 180% were excluded.
• ⁵ Days worked is estimated by calculating the proportion of their full-time wage worked and converting it to days. For example, if a claimant worked for 20% of his or her benefit rate, recalling that the benefit rate is 55% of full time wage, then the claimant is working 11% (20% x 55%) of his or her full-time wage, or aproximately 1/2 a day (11% x 5 days). This assumes that working claimants are earning approximately the same hourly wage as at their employment with which they qualified for benefits, that they had been working full time prior to establishing a claim, and that they had earrned the maximum insurable earnings or below.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI adminsitrative data.

The increase in work intensity under Pilot Project 18 can also be demonstrated by examining, on an aggregate level, the employment income earned while on claim with the level of regular benefits paid. As shown in Table 26, despite a decrease in the last two years, earnings expressed as a percentage of total regular benefits paid to all claimants has increased since 2009/2010 (54% to 59%), which suggests that the overall intensity of working while on claim has increased in recent years.

• ¹ Data are based on the weeks worked while on claim during this period, regardless of when the claim was established.
• ² Excludes weeks worked while on claims with missing earnings data, which represent less than 1% of the weeks.
• ³ Excludes claims that reverted to Pilot Project 17
• ⁴ As of the 2014/2015 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report, the methodology for the employment income earned while on regular claim has changed; previous years’ data were revised to reflect this change.
• ⁵ As of the 2014/2015 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report, the total regular benefits paid to all claimants includes those training benefits paid under article 25 of the Employment Insurance Act; previous years’ data were revised to reflect this change.
• ⁶ Ratio of earnings to regular benefits is calculated by dividing the employment income earned while on regular claim by the total regular benefits paid to all claimants. As of the 2014/2015 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report, the methodology has changed for the employment income earned while on regular claim and the total regular benefits paid to all claimants (see footnotes 4 and 5), and as such so has the ratio of earnings to regular benefits.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

This increase in work intensity seems to explain the decreases in the number of claims with working while on claim as well as the number of weeks worked since 2009/2010. The decline in the proportion of working claimants could be attributed to employers utilizing fewer employees as some working claimants increase their work intensity, decreasing the need for additional workers. Conversely, under the legislation and Pilot Projects 12 and 17, claimants may have chosen lower work intensities, increasing employers’ need to hire additional workers.

2.3.4.1 Benefit repayment, by province and territory, gender and age group

Among provinces and territories, Alberta had the highest percentage of EI claimants who repaid a portion of their benefits (23%), followed by Newfoundland and Labrador (18%) and Northwest Territories (16%) [see Table 27].

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data on claimants are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data; and data on claimants who repaid a portion of their benefits are based on a 100% sample of EI administrative data.

Among gender, 16% of male claimants were subject to repayment, compared to only 3% of female claimants. As a result, men continued to comprise the vast majority of claimants who repaid EI benefits; they accounted for 89% of the total number of EI claimants who repaid benefits in 2013, a share that has remained stable for over a decade. Statistics by age category indicate that older workers (55 and older) were more likely to repay EI benefits (14%) in 2013 while youth (24 years and under) were less likely to repay (4%). ^{Footnote 74}

Differences in frequency of benefit repayment between genders and among age groups reflect differences in pre-claim earnings among members of these groups and their likelihood to repay EI benefits. For example, based on the latest available statistics, in 2011, younger workers (24 years and under) had a total income of $14,200, compared to $48,500 for core-aged workers (25 to 54 years) and $38,400 for older workers (55 years and older). ^{Footnote 75} As a result, it is more likely that workers older than 25 will exceed the net income threshold necessary to be subject to the benefit repayment provision, while the opposite effect is true for youth.

On average, EI claimants subject to the benefit repayment provision repaid $1,284 in 2013; this amount has increased for three consecutive years, is slightly higher than the amount repaid in 2012 ($1,218), and is higher than the average over the past decade ($1,093). EI claimants who repaid a portion of their benefits received $5,434 in EI benefits ^{Footnote 76} in 2013, on average, higher than the amount in 2012 ($5,101). In 2013, EI claimants who repaid a portion of their benefits were on claim for an average of 12.0 weeks, slightly higher than the previous year (11.5 weeks). However, EI claimants who repaid EI benefits in 2013 were on an EI claim for a shorter duration compared to the overall population of EI regular claimants (19.4 weeks) in 2013/2014. This suggests that high-earning EI claimants generally are on EI benefits for shorter periods compared to their lower-earning counterparts.

Among those who repaid EI benefits in 2013, men repaid the highest amounts ($1,305) and were on an EI claim for the longest duration (12.1 weeks). Across age groups, older workers (55 and older) repaid the highest amounts ($1,514) and were on an EI claim for the longest duration (14.9 weeks).

In 2013, EI claimants in the Atlantic provinces repaid the largest amounts of EI benefits on average, most notably in Nova Scotia ($1,883) and Prince Edward Island ($1,841); these amounts were much higher than the national average ($1,284). In addition, EI claimants from the Atlantic provinces who were subject to repayment were on an EI claim for longer durations, most notably in Prince Edward Island (18.7 weeks) and Nova Scotia (17.9 weeks). Conversely, claimants from Quebec ($1,107) and Ontario ($1,159) repaid the lowest average amount of benefits and the duration of their benefits was shorter than almost all other jurisdictions (10.9 and 11.0 weeks, respectively). The Western provinces and territories ranged from $1,242 (Saskatchewan) to $1,422 (Yukon) for the amount repaid and from 10.9 weeks (Alberta) to 14.6 weeks (Nunavut) for the duration on claim. The data suggest that among EI claimants who were subject to the benefit repayment provision, a direct correlation exists between weeks on EI and benefits repaid; this is due to the fact that longer durations on EI result in higher amounts of EI received, a portion of which may have to be subsequently repaid.

2.4.1.1 Maximum duration and actual duration of Employment Insurance regular benefits, by province and territory, gender, age, and claimant category

In 2014/2015, the average maximum duration of EI regular benefits for each gender, all age groups, and most EI claimant categories, hovered close to the national average of 31.4 weeks. However, the average maximum duration of regular benefits by province and territory showed more variance (see Table 29).

The four Atlantic provinces experienced the highest average maximum duration of regular benefits (ranging from 33.2 weeks in Prince Edward Island to 38.2 weeks in Newfoundland and Labrador). British Columbia and Alberta had the lowest average, with 29.7 weeks each. This discrepancy is explained by provincial differences in economic conditions. As seen in Chapter I, the unemployment rates were the highest in the Atlantic provinces (ranging from 8.9% to 12.2%) and were amongst the lowest in British Columbia and Alberta (unemployment rates of 6.0% and 4.9%, respectively). From 2013/2014 to 2014/2015, there were modest changes to the average maximum duration among provinces, ranging from -0.9 week in New Brunswick to +0.8 week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ Long-tenured workers are Employment Insurance (EI) claimants who have paid at least 30% of the maximum annual EI premiums for 7 of the past 10 years and who, over the last 5 years, have collected EI regular or fishing benefits for 35 weeks or less. Frequent claimants are EI claimants who have had three or more claims for EI regular or fishing benefits and have collected benefits for a total of more than 60 weeks in the past 5 years. Occasional claimants are EI claimants who do not meet the requirements for either long-tenured workers or frequent claimants.
• ^p Preliminary data.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

In 2014/2015, the average maximum duration of regular benefits in the territories was 32.9 weeks in the Yukon, and 40.0 weeks in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. From 2013/2014 to 2014/2015, the territories witnessed decreases in average maximum duration, with Yukon experiencing the largest decline (-8.7 weeks or -21.2%), followed by Northwest Territories (-1.9 week or -4.5%) and Nunavut (-1.6 week or -3.8%).

The large decreases in the average maximum duration of regular benefits in the territories is attributed to improvements in data coverage, which allowed for the introduction of a new unemployment rate calculation methodology that better represents labour market conditions. In the past, the unemployment rate used for the purposes of the EI program in the territories was set at 25.0%. Effective October 12, 2014, the unemployment rate comes from Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey and reflects the actual labour market conditions. Also, effective October 12, 2014, EI economic regions for all three territories and Prince Edward Island were redefined by dividing each of the four regions into two EI economic regions, one consisting of the capital area and the remaining consisting of the non-capital area. Table 30 illustrates the impact of these changes, emphasizing the significance of the unemployment rate changes and the effect they had on the range of maximum entitlement during 2014/2015.

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ Unemployment rates used for the Employment Insurance program are a moving average of seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada, as per section 17 of the Employment Insurance Regulations.
• ² From April 1, 2014 to October 11, 2014, the current EI economic regions "Charlottetown", "Whitehorse", "Yellowknife", and "Iqaluit" did not exist. However, the prevailing unemployment rates (for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Program) for these areas were based on those of the former EI economic regions they were a part of (i.e., Prince Edward Island 9.8-12.0%; Yukon 25.0%; Northwest Territories 25.0%; and Nunavut 25.0%).
• ³ For the purposes of the Employment Insurance program, unemployment rates for the Employment Insurance (EI) economic regions of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut were set at 25% up until October 11, 2014.
• Sources: ESDC, Employment Insurance Act, section 12 (for data on maximum duration); and ESDC, Labour Force Survey (for data on EI monthly regional unemployment rates).

The redefining of the previously mentioned EI economic regions had more of an impact on the territories, most notably Yukon, than it did for the only province impacted by the change, Prince Edward Island. For example, in 2014/2015, from the period between April 1, 2014 and October 11, 2014 compared to the period between October 12, 2014 and March 31, 2015, the monthly unemployment rate in the EI economic region of Yukon decreased from 25.0% to 7.3–9.8%, resulting in a drop in the range of maximum entitlement of regular benefits from 32–45 weeks, to 17–44 weeks (see Table 30). During the same period, Whitehorse’s monthly unemployment rate decreased from 25.0% ^{Footnote 84} to 4.1–5.8%, resulting in a drop in the range of maximum entitlement from 32–45 weeks, to 14–36 weeks. The impact of the unemployment rate calculation methodology changes in the Yukon territory (comprising the new EI economic regions of Yukon and Whitehorse), which took effect on October 12, 2014, was the primary reason for the 8.7 week drop in average maximum duration.

Across gender, men had slightly higher levels of average maximum duration of regular benefits than women. Maximum duration of regular benefits was also the highest, on average, among claimants between 25 to 54 years of age. Finally, long-tenured workers ^{Footnote 85} had much longer maximum duration of regular benefits than occasional ^{Footnote 86} and frequent claimants. ^{Footnote 87}

In 2014/2015, Nunavut (29.3 weeks), Northwest Territories (25.7 weeks) and Newfoundland and Labrador (25.3 weeks) experienced the largest average actual duration of regular benefits, whereas Alberta (17.4 weeks) and Manitoba (18.0 weeks) witnessed the lowest average of all provinces and territories. Between 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, the largest decrease in average actual duration of regular benefits occurred in the Yukon (-1.5 week), while the largest increase was observed in Alberta (1.1 week) and Saskatchewan (0.7).

The decrease in Yukon is due to changes in the unemployment rate calculation methodology mentioned previously: the average actual duration for the territory was 24.0 weeks in 2013/2014, before dropping to 22.5 weeks in 2014/2015. In addition, the large increase in Alberta and Saskatchewan coincides with the spike observed in these provinces for the number of new regular claims established in 2014/2015. As described in section 2.1, the number of claims jumped by 25.9% in Alberta and by 15.0% in Saskatchewan because of the changing economic conditions affecting the Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction industry. As a result, not only did the number of regular claimants in Alberta and Saskatchewan rise, but the period of time during which the claimants collected regular benefits also increased.

In 2014/2015, actual duration of regular benefits was nearly identical for both men and women, while it was highest among older workers (55 years and older) and frequent claimants.

2.4.1.2 Maximum duration and actual duration of Employment Insurance regular benefits, by industry and employment interval group

In 2014/2015, EI regular claimants in the Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction industry experienced, on average, the largest maximum duration at 34.6 weeks, followed by the Manufacturing industry (34.3 weeks)—similar to results from the previous year (see Table 31). The higher maximum duration levels in these industries can be attributed to a large proportion of claimants with 1,400 or more hours of insurable employment, claimants who are more likely to reside in regions with higher unemployment rates (e.g. 12.1% or higher), and individuals who work, on average, among the highest number of hours, at 41.0 and 37.1 hours per week, including overtime, respectively (refer to Chapter I, Chart 19).

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ Includes claims for which at least $1 of regular benefits were paid.
• ² This industry comprises the industries with codes 55 (management of companies and enterprises) and 56 (administrative and support, waste management and mediation services) from the North American Industry Classification System.
• ³ This industry comprises the industries with codes 51 (information and cultural industries) and 71 (arts, entertainment and recreation) from the North American Industry Classification System.
• ^P Preliminary data.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

In 2014/2015, the average maximum duration of EI regular benefits slightly declined or remained stable for all industries, except for the Utilities industry. EI claimants within the Utilities industry witnessed a decrease in maximum duration of 1.7 week.

Average actual duration levels were highest in the Finance and Insurance industry (23.1 weeks) and lowest in the Educational Services industry (12.3 weeks) in 2014/15. The shorter intervals of actual average duration witnessed in the Educational Services industry are influenced by a shorter maximum duration (28.2 weeks, on average).

The largest variation in average actual duration levels in 2014/2015 occurred in the Finance and Insurance industry (-1.6 week). There were only minor increases and decreases in the other industries.

EI regular claimants accumulate varying hours of insurable employment beyond the minimum requirement, under the Variable Entrance Requirement (VER) provision, and can be divided into three groups: i) short employment interval (0 to 70 hours beyond minimum requirement); ii) medium employment interval (71 to 910 hours beyond minimum requirement); and iii) long employment interval (911 or more hours beyond minimum requirement). As illustrated in Chart 31, in 2014/2015, 44% of all regular claimants had long employment intervals, compared to 53% for those with medium employment intervals. Only 3% of regular claimants had short employment intervals, which implies that a small proportion of claimants just barely qualify for regular benefits.

Show Data Table

	Total EI regular claims (millions)	Long employment spell (911 or more hours beyond minimum requirement)	Medium employment spell (71 to 910 hours beyond minimum requirement)	Short employment spell (0 to 70 hours beyond minimum requirement)
2007/2008	1.29	41%	55%	4%
2008/2009	1.64	48%	49%	3%
2009/2010	1.62	46%	51%	3%
2010/2011	1.40	42%	55%	3%
2011/2012	1.42	42%	54%	3%
2012/2013	1.36	43%	54%	3%
2013/2014	1.33	44%	53%	3%
2014/2015	1.34	44%	53%	3%

• Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
• ¹ Includes claims for which at least $1 of regular benefits was paid.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

Chart 31 provides a visual illustration of the proportion of regular claimants who have, on average, shorter or longer weeks of duration (e.g. the short employment interval group is linked to shorter duration levels). Since 2007/2008, the share of EI regular claims has remained relatively constant among all three employment interval groups, although the proportion increased slightly for claimants from the long employment interval group, in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, during the 2008 recession. During the recession, a large number of workers who had permanent full-time work became unemployed, and many of them had accumulated several hundred hours of insurable employment beyond the minimum requirement.

2.5.1.1 Entitlement exhaustion by demographics

While the national entitlement exhaustion rate remained stable from 2013/2014 to 2014/2015, there were mostly modest changes among the provinces and territories, and the different demographic groups. However, Yukon showed the largest change in entitlement exhaustion, more than doubling to 35.1% in 2014/2015 compared to 2013/2014 (17.4%). This can be attributed to a 8.7 week drop in average maximum duration, which was impacted by the introduction of a new unemployment rate calculation methodology that better represents labour market conditions, effective on October 12, 2014. ^{Footnote 96}

Nunavut exhibited the highest entitlement exhaustion rate (42.2%) while Saskatchewan exhibited the lowest rate (28.3%). Table 33 presents entitlement exhaustion rates by various demographic groups for 2014/2015. Newfoundland and Labrador exhibited the highest requalification rate at 24.3%, while Nunavut experienced the lowest rate (2.1%).

Women have higher entitlement exhaustion rates than men, as they accumulate on average fewer hours of insurable employment, resulting in fewer weeks of entitlement to regular benefits. Claimants aged 55 and older tend to have the highest entitlement exhaustion rate, which is likely attributable to the challenges they face in securing new employment following a job loss.

The likelihood of entitlement exhaustion varies for different categories of EI claimants. For instance, frequent claimants had an exhaustion rate of 38.7% in 2014/2015, a small increase compared to 2013/2014 (37.3%). Also, just over one-fifth of these claimants were able to re-qualify for a new EI claim. In comparison, entitlement exhaustion rates were 35.7% for occasional claimants, and 27.1% for long-tenured workers, whi

le requalification rates were 5.6% and 3.0%, respectively.

• ¹ Long-tenured workers are EI claimants who have paid at least 30% of the maximum annual EI premiums for 7 of the past 10 years and who, over the last 5 years, have collected EI regular or fishing benefits for 35 weeks or less. Frequent claimants are EI claimants who have had three or more claims for EI regular or fishing benefits and have collected benefits for a total of more than 60 weeks in the past 5 years. Occasional claimants are EI claimants who do not meet the requirements for either long-tenured workers or frequent claimants.
• ² Seasonal regular claims are those claims, for which at least $1 of regular benefits was paid, by claimants who have established at least three regular or fishing claims in the last five years, two of which had to have started during the same period of year as the current claim. This period is defined as the 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after the current claim commenced, for a total window of 17 weeks.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

2.5.1.2 Entitlement exhaustion by the variable entrance requirement

Entitlement exhaustion rates are negatively correlated with the number of weeks of regular benefits entitlement, which is a function of both the number of hours of insurable employment accumulated and the regional unemployment rate. ^{Footnote 97}

As illustrated in Table 34, in 2014/2015, entitlement exhaustion rates decreased significantly as the number of hours of insurable employment increased with the exception of claimants who accumulated 1,800 hours or more. For instance, 67.6% of regular claimants with 420 to 769 hours exhausted their entitlement, compared to 21.9% of regular claimants with 1,470 to 1,819 hours. The entitlement exhaustion rate for regular claimants with more than 1,820 hours was slightly higher at 25.2%, likely because those with more than 1,820 hours face a more significant job loss shock. These claimants may be long-tenured workers facing more significant challenges in finding new employment.

Table 34 also shows that entitlement exhaustion rates vary based on the unemployment rate, with rates ranging from 25.1% in regions with an unemployment rate of 16.1% or higher, to 36.3% in regions with an unemployment rate between 8.1% and 10.0%.

Exhaustion rates tend to be low when both the unemployment rates and the number of hours of insurable employment are high. Under these circumstances, regular claimants have a higher maximum duration of regular benefit weeks. For example, only 12.1% of regular claimants exhausted their benefit weeks, if they resided in regions with 16.1% or higher unemployment rates, and accumulated between 1,470 and 1,819 hours of insurable employment. In contrast, 71.8% of regular claimants exhausted their benefit weeks, if they resided in regions with unemployment rates between 8.1% and 10%, and accumulated between 420 and 769 hours of insurable employment.

• ¹ Unemployment rates used for the Employment Insurance program are a moving average of seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada, as per section 17 of the Employment Insurance Regulations.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

2.5.1.3 Entitlement exhaustion and requalification rates

The entitlement exhaustee requalification rate refers to regular claimants who exhaust their EI entitlement but are able to establish a new claim for EI benefits within four weeks. Similar to entitlement exhaustion rates, requalification rates vary significantly depending on a claimant’s work force attachment (hours of insurable employment) and the regional unemployment rate. As shown in Table 35, the requalification rate for claimants who exhausted their entitlement with between 420 and 769 hours of insurable employment was 15.0% in 2014/2015, compared to 3.2% or less for claimants who established their claims with 1,470 or more hours of insurable employment. Similarly, 24.6% of entitlement exhaustees in regions with unemployment rates between 12.1% and 16.0% established a subsequent claim within four weeks after exhaustion, versus approximately 6.0% of entitlement exhaustees in regions with an unemployment rate of 8.0% or lower.

• ¹ Unemployment rates used for the Employment Insurance program are a moving average of seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada, as per section 17 of the Employment Insurance Regulations.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

2.5.1.4 Entitlement exhaustion of Employment Insurance regular benefits – seasonal claimants and seasonal gappers

Historically, entitlement exhaustion rates have always been lower for seasonal claimants than for non-seasonal claimants. That held true for claims completed in 2014/2015, as the entitlement exhaustion was at 26.8% for seasonal claimants and 38.3% for non-seasonal claimants (see Table 33).

The variance in exhaustion rates between seasonal and non-seasonal regular claimants is due to the fact that when seasonal claimants are laid off, most have a job lined up for the next season and will return to work at approximately the same time the following year. However, most non-seasonal regular claimants have to look for work once they are laid off, and are therefore more likely to rely on EI for longer periods and exhaust their benefit entitlement.

The level of entitlement and duration of regular benefits have a particular impact on seasonal claimants who have a combined work-benefit period of less than 52 weeks per year. This group of claimants is referred to as “seasonal gappers.” These workers may go through a period where neither work income nor EI is available to them, if the seasonal job to which they are returning is not yet available when they exhaust their EI benefits.

Among individuals who completed claims in 2014/2015, there were 16,080 seasonal gappers, representing slightly over 1% of all regular claimants who completed a claim in 2014/2015. Seasonal gappers who completed claims in 2014/2015 averaged 18.9 weeks of work and 26.6 weeks of EI benefits, including the waiting period, resulting in an average gap of 6.5 weeks. Over half (56.2%) of seasonal gappers experienced a gap of less than 6 weeks, 26.7% a gap of 6 to 11 weeks and 17.1% a gap of 12 weeks or more.

As mentioned in previous reports, the likelihood of becoming a seasonal gapper is higher in regions with high unemployment, where claimants require fewer hours to qualify for benefits, and there can be extended periods of unemployment between seasons. The Atlantic provinces were overrepresented in regard to seasonal gappers (27%), while only representing 15% of all regular claims completed in 2014/2015. For the same period, Ontario accounted for 21% of seasonal gappers, but was actually underrepresented as the province accounted for 30% of regular claims in Canada.

2.5.2.1 Benefit period exhaustion by demographics

Among provinces and territories, there were fluctuations in the benefit period exhaustion rate in 2014/2015, with the largest increases occurring in Manitoba (+2.8 percentage points) and British Columbia (+2.7 percentage points), and the largest decreases occurring in Nunavut (-5.1 percentage points) and Northwest Territories (-5.0 percentage points), as shown in Table 33 in section 2.5.1.1. There were modest increases and decreases in the benefit period exhaustion rate across gender and all age groups. New Brunswick experienced the highest benefit period exhaustion rate (39.5%), while Nunavut exhibited the lowest rate (14.0%).

Men tend to have higher benefit period exhaustion rates than women, as they are generally entitled to more weeks of regular benefits. They are also more likely to work while on claim and defer EI benefits. Claimants aged 45 and older tend to have a higher benefit period exhaustion rate than younger claimants. Since 2010/2011, the benefit period exhaustion rate for claimants aged 45 and older decreased more significantly than for claimants under 45 years of age.

As shown in Table 33, the likelihood of exhausting the benefit period before full entitlement was paid varies greatly for different categories of EI claimants. For claims completed in 2014/2015, 21.6% of long-tenured workers and 19.9% of occasional claimants exhausted their benefit period, while 34.2% of frequent claimants exhausted their benefit period, of whom approximately six out of seven re-qualified for a new claim. Although the average duration of regular benefits for seasonal claimants is shorter than that for non-seasonal claimants, 36.2% of seasonal claimants exhausted their benefit period in 2014/2015 compared to 18.2% of non-seasonal claimants. The benefit period exhaustion rate for seasonal claimants has decreased slightly from its high in 2011/2012 at 38.8%, but remains higher than in 2009/2010 when it stood at 25.4%.

2.5.2.2 Benefit period exhaustion by the variable entrance requirement

As illustrated in Table 36, benefit period exhaustion rates are moderately correlated with the number of hours of insurable employment used to establish the claim for benefit. Claimants who accumulated between 420 and 769 hours in 2014/2015 experienced a 11.4% benefit period exhaustion rate, compared to about 28%-29% of claimants who accumulated between 1,120 and 1,819 hours. However, it decreased to 22.6% for claimants with more than 1,820 hours. These are similar patterns to last year.

Benefit period exhaustion rates are positively correlated to the unemployment rate. It varied more significantly by unemployment rates than by hours of insurable employment in 2014/2015 as claimants from regions with an unemployment rate of 8.0% or lower experienced an average benefit period exhaustion rate of 19.4%. By comparison, claimants in regions with unemployment rates of 16.1% or higher incurred average benefit period exhaustion rates more than twice as high (42.4%).

• ¹ Unemployment rates used for the Employment Insurance program are a moving average of seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada, as per section 17 of the Employment Insurance Regulations.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

Higher benefit period exhaustion rates in regions with high unemployment rate reflects a greater usage of EI benefits and a greater proportion of claimants living in these regions working while on claim. While approximately 51% of all regular claimants worked while on claim, the figure was significantly higher (60%) for claimants residing in regions with unemployment rates of 10.1% or higher. As outlined in section 2.3.1, claimants who work while on claim and have sufficient earnings can defer their week of EI benefits to a future week within the same benefit period.

2.5.2.3 Benefit period exhaustion and requalification rates

Compared to entitlement exhaustees whose requalification rate ^{Footnote 98} was 9.1% in 2014/2015, benefit period exhaustees had an average requalification rate ^{Footnote 99} of 70.5%, as shown in Table 37. The requalification rate has continuously increased since 2010/2011 when it stood at 58.2%. Requalification rates vary by demographics, as 85.2% of frequent claimants who exhausted their benefit period re-qualified for a new EI claim, compared to 59.5% of long-tenured workers.

Moreover, as shown in Table 37, benefit period exhaustees who had accumulated more hours of insurable employment and/or who lived in a region with a lower unemployment rate were less likely to re-qualify for a new EI claim in 2014/2015.

• ¹ Unemployment rates used for the Employment Insurance program are a moving average of seasonally adjusted monthly rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada, as per section 17 of the Employment Insurance Regulations.
• Source: ESDC, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

Job alerts exit survey

The Job Alerts Exit Survey is a voluntary survey sent to a user when they unsubscribe from Job Alerts. All users who unsubscribe receive the survey with close to 70% of users completing it.

In 2014/2015, 104,989 users (+93.4%) completed the Job Alerts Exit Survey. Of those who responded, 34,208 (32.6%) indicated that they were EI claimants, while 19,892 (58.1%) of these claimants answered that they had found a job while subscribing to Job Alerts.

Claimant Information sessions

In February 2013, Claimant Information (CI) sessions were re-designed and became tailored to each of the three EI claimant groups; frequent claimants, occasional claimants and long-tenured workers. Claimants directed to CI sessions are identified based upon local job-demand in their previous occupation and availability of work.

From April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, 10,195 CI sessions were held nationally, with 168, 531 claimants directed to attend.

For analytical purposes, claimants who are directed to information sessions are compared to a random sample of claimants with similar attributes who are not directed to information sessions (e.g. control group). A review of claims that started from April 2013 to March 2014 and have since completed showed that EI claimants directed into CI sessions had on average 1 less week of benefits paid than those not directed to report and were 1.3 times more likely to report having found work.

Disqualification and disentitlement

EI claimants have always been required to undertake a job search for suitable employment. In addition, the Employment Insurance Act stipulates that individual can be disentitled from EI benefits for a variety of reasons. The CCAJ initiative did not add new reasons or operational codes for disentitling a claimant. As such, there is no administrative data that precisely identifies EI claimants that have been denied benefits as a result of the regulations and CI sessions that were introduced as part of the CCAJ initiative. However, two specific disentitlements are closely related to the new regulations and the refined CI sessions, which can provide some insight in terms of the impact on EI claimants. In fiscal year 2014 a total of 1,250 disentitlements were imposed because claimants failed to search for work (1,070) or refused to accept suitable employment (180). This represents a small proportion (0.08%) of total EI regular and fishing claims established, and does not take into consideration that in some situations, benefits would have been reinstated once the claimant demonstrated they were fulfilling their responsibility.