Chapter 2: Impact and effectiveness of Employment Insurance benefits (Part I of the Employment Insurance Act)

New Employment Insurance claims established

The slight increase in the number of new EI claims observed during the reporting period is largely due to an increase in claims for sickness and parental benefits, which was partially offset by a decrease in the number of claims for regular, compassionate care and maternity benefits (see Table 2).

Most provinces and territories experienced modest declines in the number of new EI claims established between FY1718 and FY1819. However, Alberta (+18,600 or +10.9%), Newfoundland and Labrador (+4,980 or +6.1%), Saskatchewan (+2,960 or +5.8%) and Manitoba (+2,580 or +4.2%) recorded increases over the reporting period (see Table 3).

The number of new claims established by men increased slightly during FY1819, while it decreased for women. Men established 54.2% of all new claims. Levels of new EI claims decreased for young workers aged 24 years old and under and for workers aged 45 to 54 years old.

Total amount paid in Employment Insurance benefits

The amount paid for all types of EI benefits combined reached $16.7 billion in FY1819, a decrease of $2 billion or -10.6%. This decline was largely attributable to the decrease in the amount paid in EI regular benefits ($2 billion or -15.6%).

The share of EI benefits paid by benefit type remains relatively unchanged compared to the previous reporting period. However, the share of regular benefits fell slightly between FY1718 and FY1819 from 67.6% to 63.6%, while the share of special benefits climbed from 30.7% to 34.5%. Fishing and Work-Sharing benefits represented less than 2.0% of total EI benefits paid (see Chart 2).

Text description of Chart 2

Benefits	$ million	% share
Regular benefits	$10,673.8	63.6%
Work-Sharing benefits	$5.7	0.1%
Fishing benefits	$297.7	1.8%
Special benefits	$5,792.7	34.5%
Parental benefits	$2,728.0	16.3%
Sickness benefits	$1,769.6	10.6%
Maternity benefits	$1,164.1	6.9%
Compassionate care and Family caregiving benefits	$130.9	0.8%

• *The total amount paid reported in Chart 2 does not correspond to the total reported in Tables 2 and 3 because data on compassionate care benefits and family caregiver benefits can only be reported on a 100% sampling bases on an aggregate level.
• Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a sample of 10% of the EI administrative data, except for Work-Sharing, family caregiver and compassionate care benefits (100%).

The amount paid in EI benefits decreased in all provinces and territories, except for Northwest Territories. Alberta (-18.2%), Newfoundland and Labrador (-13.7%) and Quebec (-12.7%) recorded the largest declines in benefits paid (see Table 3).

EI benefits received by both men and women declined from the previous fiscal year, with men having experienced a greater decline than women. The amount paid in EI benefits also decreased for each age group.

Levels of benefits

For all claims, excluding those for extended parental benefits^{Footnote 5}, the average weekly benefit rate increased by 2.6% nationally to $465 over the reporting period (see Annex 2.3.2). This rise is comparable to the 2.7% increase in maximum insurable earnings between 2018 and 2019 (see Section 2.7). All provinces and territories recorded increases, with the exception of Nunavut. Northwest Territories continued to have the highest average weekly benefit rate ($520), while Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia posted the lowest average rates ($437 each).

Northwest Territories also had the highest proportion of claimants receiving the maximum weekly benefit rate (79.4%) for FY1819, while Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick had the lowest proportions of claimants receiving the maximum rate (35.1% and 35.4%, respectively).

The average weekly benefit rate increased for male and female claimants to $492 and $433, respectively. Men (59.5%) were proportionally more likely to receive the maximum weekly benefit rate compared to women (33.9%) in FY1819.

The average weekly benefit rate also increased for all age groups compared to FY1718. Claimants aged 25 to 44 still received the highest average weekly benefit rate ($478) and were more likely to collect the maximum weekly benefit rate (52.7%). Claimants under 25 years of age received, on average, the lowest amount of weekly benefits ($421), and only 30.0% of them received the maximum weekly benefit rate in FY1819.

Family supplement provision

The Family supplement provision, which targets low-income families, provides additional benefits to EI claimants with children under the age of 18 who have an annual family net income equal to or less than $25,921. The claimant must also receive the Canada Child Benefit. Under the Family supplement provision, which is available to claims in all benefit types, the weekly amount of family supplement can increase a claimant's benefit rate from 55% to a maximum of 80% of his or her weekly insurable earnings, subject to the maximum weekly benefit. The supplement provided to eligible claimants is determined by the claimant's family net income, the number of children in the claimant's family, and the age of the claimant's children.^{Footnote 6}

In FY1819, low-income families received a total of $77.0 million in additional benefits through the Family supplement provision. A total of 72,900 claims received the family supplement in FY1819, a decrease of 4.0% from FY1718. The number of EI claims receiving the family supplement has now decreased for 17 consecutive years from a high of 187,300 claims in FY0102. Women (79.5%) and claimants aged 25 to 44 (72.2%) continue to be the main demographic groups benefitting from the Family supplement provision. The average weekly family supplement was $44 in FY1819 and has remained relatively unchanged over the years (see Annex 2.23 for more statistics on the Family Supplement provision).

Employment Insurance regular claims and amount paid by province or territory, gender and age

As illustrated in Chart 6, on a year-over-year basis, 7 out of 13 provinces and territories experienced a decline in the number of new claims established for EI regular benefits, including Northwest Territories (-10.2% or -180 claims), Prince Edward Island (-5.4% or -890 claims), Quebec (-3.7% or -14,580 claims), Nova Scotia (-3.3% or-2,080 claims), New Brunswick (-3.2% or -2,290 claims), Ontario (-2.5% or -9,510 claims) and British Columbia (-1.3% or -1,550 claims). These decreases partly offset the significant increases in Prairies provinces.

Text description of Chart 6

Province/territory	% Change claims established	% Change amount paid
British Columbia	-1.3%	-17.1%
Alberta	13.1%	-26.2%
Saskatchewan	6.8%	-17.0%
Manitoba	5.9%	-3.9%
Ontario	-2.5%	-12.8%
Quebec	-3.7%	-15.3%
New Brunswick	-3.2%	-13.3%
Nova Scotia	-3.3%	-7.4%
Prince Edward Island	-5.4%	-8.6%
Newfoundland and Labrador	7.3%	-16.2%
Yukon	1.9%	-12.9%
Northwestern Territories	-10.2%	-10.2%
Nunavut	11.1%	-25.7%

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

In terms of the total EI regular benefits paid in FY1819, it decreased in all provinces and territories (see Chart 6) except in the Northwest Territories as compared to the previous year. The largest percentage decreases in the amount of EI regular benefits paid were observed in Alberta (-26.2%), followed by Nunavut (-25.7%), British Columbia (-17.1%), and Saskatchewan (-17.0%).^{Footnote 14} The percentage decreases in terms of EI regular benefits payments in Ontario and Quebec were lower than the national percentage decrease, and these 2 provinces continued to account for half (50.2%) of the total of all EI regular benefits paid in FY1819.

Table 6 outlines the number of new EI regular claims established and the total amount paid by gender and age groups. The number of new claims established by men remained relatively stable, while new claims established by women decreased slightly in the reporting period compared to the previous year (+0.3% and -1.8%, respectively). The share of claims established by gender remained stable year-over-year.

In terms of the total amount paid in EI regular benefits, the share of benefits paid to both men and women remained stable in FY1819 compared to the previous year, men accounted for 66.0% and women 34.0% of the total benefits paid.

The number of new EI regular claims established decreased for all age groups, except individuals aged 55 years old and over, while at the same time the total amount paid for all age groups decreased during the reporting period compared to the previous year. Like in the previous year, claimants who were between 25 and 44 years old continued to account for the largest shares of new regular claims and total amount paid in FY1819, while the smallest shares were for younger claimants aged less than 25 years.

One notable trend that has been observed over the past few years is that, while the shares of new claims established by different age groups has been relatively stable, the share of new claims established by older claimants aged 55 years and over has increased slowly but steadily over the past several years. The trends observed for older claimants are likely attributable in part to Canada’s aging population and the labour force composition. Individuals in this age category accounted for 21.4% of the labour force in FY1819, up from 21.1% in FY1718 (+0.3 percentage points).^{Footnote 15}

Employment Insurance regular claims and amount paid by industry

As outlined in Table 7, there is a slight increase in the number of new claims established for EI regular benefits for the goods-producing industries (+3,120 claims or +0.6%), while for the service producing industries the number of new claims remained stable. Among the goods-producing industries, the Construction industry accounted for more than half (57.9%) of all new claims established, and had an increase of +1.3% compared to the previous year. On the other hand, the largest relative increase was observed in the Mining and oil and gas extraction industry where the number of new claims increased by 17.1%. Among the services-producing industries, the Educational services industry accounted for the largest share of claims in FY1819 (21.3%). On a year-over-year basis, the largest percentage decrease in the number of new claims established in the services-producing sector was observed for the Finance and insurance industry (-15.9%), while the largest increase was for both Transportation and warehousing, and Other services (excluding Public administration) industry, with 4.1% increase for both.

The total amount of benefits paid to claimants in both the goods-producing sector and the services-producing sector decreased by $870.2 million (-16.3%) and $1,003 million (-14.3%), respectively, in the reporting period compared to the previous year. The decline in the total amount paid to claimants in the goods-producing industries was mainly attributable to the large decrease in the Construction industry (-$473.1 million or -15.2%) and in the Manufacturing industry (-$268.1 million or -20.7%). As for the services-producing sector, the decrease in total amount paid was in most part driven by the declines in the Retail trade industry (-$142.5 million or -18.7%), the Professional, scientific and technical services industry (-$121.7 million or -20.2%), and the Business, building and other support services industry (-$102.6 million or -11.8%).

Employment Insurance regular benefits and firms

According to the 2017 tax data^{Footnote 16} available from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the number of firms operating in Canada slightly increased (+1.0%) compared to 2016. Among the 1.21 million of firms, 309,100 (representing 25.5% of all firms) employed at least 1 employee who had received EI regular benefits.

Table 8 outlines the number of firms, employment and EI regular claimants by size^{Footnote 17} of firms. The proportion of firms which employed at least 1 employee receiving EI regular benefits varied widely by firm size, with smaller firms being less likely to be the last employer of a claimant. For example, 20.0% of small-sized firms in 2017 had at least 1 former employee who received EI regular benefits, compared to 74.3% of small-to-medium sized firms, 95.1% of medium-to-large sized firms and 99.4%of large-sized firms.

However, when the number of claimants for EI regular benefits is compared with distribution of workforce by firm size, employees from smaller firms are found to be over-represented among EI regular claimants. As shown in Table 8, smaller firms accounted for 21.5% of the total workforce while they represented 26.6% of the total EI regular benefit claimants in 2017. Similarly, employees in the small-to-medium sized firms were also over-represented among EI regular claimants—these firms accounted for 19.8% of the total employees and 24.3% of the total EI regular claimants. This gap between the share of employment and the share of EI regular claimants narrows for the medium-to-large sized firms. For the large-sized firms, however, the opposite was observed—these firms represented 42.6% of the total workforce in Canada in 2017 but accounted for only 31.6% of the total EI regular claimants. The higher proportion of usage of EI regular benefits among employees in the smaller-sized firms suggest that smaller firms are more vulnerable to difficult business or economic conditions than larger firms, and need to make broader adjustments to their workforces, resulting in a larger share of their employees claiming EI regular benefits as a result of layoffs. Moreover, this trend can also be influenced by industry-related characteristics such as the greater prevalence of seasonal jobs in small-sized firms that are generally more likely to rely on EI, relative to the national average in some industries.^{Footnote 18}

Employment Insurance regular claims and amount paid by EI claimant category

Table 9 outlines the number of new claims established for EI regular benefits and total amount paid by EI claimant category.^{Footnote 19} In FY1819, both the number of new claims established by and the total amount paid to long-tenured workers decreased by 5.0% and 26.2%, respectively, compared to the previous year. On the other hand, the number of new claims established by occasional claimants remained relatively unchanged (+0.2%) in FY1819, while the total amount paid decreased by 12.2% compared to the previous year. Lastly, the number of new claims established by frequent claimants had a moderate increase (+2.5%) in the reporting period; while the total amount paid to the claimants in this category fell by 10.7% from FY1718.

In FY1819, long-tenured workers accounted for 22.8% of all new regular claims established while they received 23.1% of the total amount paid. Occasional claimants, on the other hand, proportionally benefited less—they accounted for 54.2% of all new claims established in FY1819 but received 51.6% of the total amount paid. Frequent claimants accounted for 23.0% of total new regular claims in the reporting year and received 25.3% of the total amount paid.

Chart 7 and Chart 8 show the share of new EI regular claims established and the share of total amount paid by claimant categories from FY1011 to FY1819.

Text description of Chart 7

Claimants	FY1011	FY1112	FY1213	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Long-tenured workers	24.0%	25.6%	23.3%	21.5%	19.5%	26.6%	24.9%	23.9%	22.8%
Occasional claimants	53.9%	51.8%	53.1%	55.1%	57.8%	51.9%	53.5%	53.8%	54.2%
Frequent claimants	22.1%	22.6%	23.6%	23.4%	22.7%	21.5%	21.6%	22.3%	23.0%

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

Text description of Chart 8

Claimants	FY1011	FY1112	FY1213	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Long-tenured workers	34.6%	28.4%	26.0%	22.9%	20.2%	25.9%	29.1%	26.5%	23.1%
Occasional claimants	44.5%	46.6%	47.4%	50.9%	54.1%	50.5%	49.1%	49.6%	51.6%
Frequent claimants	20.9%	25.0%	26.6%	26.2%	25.7%	23.6%	21.9%	23.9%	25.3%

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

Employment Insurance regular claims by hours of insurable employment and unemployment rate in the Employment Insurance economic region of establishment

One of the eligibility conditions for EI regular benefits is the accumulation of enough hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period. The number of required hours depends on the unemployment rate in the EI economic region where the claimant resides and is known as the Variable Entrance Requirement (VER). The higher the unemployment rate in a given region, the lower the number of hours needed to qualify for EI regular benefits (see Annex 2.2 for the full breakdown of required number of hours of insurable employment with corresponding regional rate of unemployment). A detailed discussion is provided in subsection 2.2.2 on eligiblity and access to EI regular benefits.

Table 10 outlines the distribution of EI regular claims for the past 5 years by the number of hours of insurable employment used to qualify for EI regular benefits. Consistent with previous years, claimants who accumulated more than 1,820 hours of insurable employment accounted for the largest share (25.0%) of total new EI regular claims established in FY1819. This was relatively unchanged from the previous year. On the other hand, claimants with less than 700 hours of insurable employment represented the smallest share (4.7%), decreasing by 0.4 percentage points compared to the previous year. All of the categories shown in Table 10 experienced a change in their share in FY1819 that was less than 1.0 percentage point compared to the previous year.

Chart 9 shows the average number of hours of insurable employment per claim receiving EI regular benefits from FY1011 to FY1819 by gender. In the reporting period, on average in Canada, claimants had accumulated 1,371 hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period, up from 1,369 hours in FY1718. The difference between the average number of hours of insurable employment for men and women has stayed around 60 hours over the years. In FY1819, men on average had 63 more hours of insurable employment than women. This can be attributable to the fact that a higher proportion of women work in part-time and/or temporary jobs than men, and thus accumulate fewer hours of insurable employment on average.

Text description of Chart 9

Claimants	FY1011	FY1112	FY1213	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Men	1,358	1,377	1,393	1,400	1,406	1,418	1,385	1,392	1,395
Women	1,309	1,315	1,328	1,338	1,342	1,353	1,328	1,333	1,332
Canada	1,338	1,352	1,367	1,376	1,381	1,393	1,363	1,369	1,371

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

In FY1819, claimants who were aged between 25 and 44 years accumulated the highest number of hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period (1,406 hours), followed by those who were 45 to 54 years old (1,395 hours). Older claimants (that is, 55 years old and above), on the other hand, accumulated the lowest number of hours of insurable employment (1,308 hours) in FY1819, closely followed by younger claimants aged less than 25 years (1,315 hours).

Furthermore, the average number of hours of insurable employment per claim during the qualifying period in FY1819 varied by province and territory as well. Generally, the number of hours of insurable employment per claim in the Atlantic provinces and the territories tend to be lower than other regions. This trend continued in the reporting period—the lowest average hours of insurable employment per claim among all provinces and territories was observed in Newfoundland and Labrador (1,126 hours), followed by Nunavut (1,180 hours), Prince Edward Island (1,182 hours) and New Brunswick (1,236 hours). On the other hand, the highest average hours of insurable employment per claim in FY1819 was observed in Alberta (1,462 hours), followed by Ontario (1,436 hours) and British Columbia (1,403 hours).

Table 11 outlines the number and distribution of new claims established for EI regular benefits as well as the labour force and the unemployed population by regional unemployment rate. The share of new regular claims established in EI economic regions where the unemployment rate was between 0.1% and 7.0% was higher (+80,450 claims) in FY1819 compared to previous fiscal years. This increase can be mainly attributable to the increase in the number of EI regular claims established in EI economic regions of Alberta (+71,990 claims) and Newfoundland and Labrador (+ 15,080 claims) where the unemployment rate thresholds were less than or equal to 7%. Table 11 also shows that, in FY1819, EI regular claims established and the unemployed population were similarly spread across regional unemployment rate categories.

Claimant obligations to search for and accept suitable employment

Under the Employment Insurance Act, claimants for EI regular benefits must generally be capable of and available for suitable employment and must demonstrate this by searching for and taking advantage of an opportunity for suitable employment in order to receive EI regular benefits.

As specified under section 27 of the Employment Insurance Act, a claimant is disqualified from receiving EI regular benefits in cases where he/she does not apply for suitable employment after becoming aware it is vacant, or fails to accept the employment after it being offered; has not taken advantage of an opportunity for suitable employment; or has not followed written direction by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission given to assist the claimant in finding suitable employment.

The Government made legislative and regulatory changes in July 2016 to simplify job search responsibilities for claimants of EI regular benefits^{Footnote 20}

Before the legislative change in July 2016, the Connecting Canadians with Available Jobs (CCAJ) initiative that started on January 6, 2013 was in effect. A departmental evaluation report^{Footnote 21} found that the number of disqualifications or disentitlements due to inadequate job searches or failing to accept suitable jobs increased, but remained low relative to the total number of disqualifications and disentitlements during the period in which CCAJ was in effect (January 2013 to July 2016), indicating enhanced and more efficient monitoring of claimants by Service Canada. These conditions should be considered when comparing the results presented in Table 12.

Table 12 outlines the number of disqualifications and disentitlements related to refusal and failure to search for work in the past 5 years. In FY1819, there were a total of 1,430 disqualifications and disentitlements related to failure to search for work, compared to 1,730 incidents in the previous year. On the other hand, there were a total of 170 disqualifications and disentitlements related to refusal of suitable work in FY1819, compared to 130 incidents in the previous year. However, these 2 factors represent only a fraction (0.1%) of all disqualifications and disentitlements in FY1819, and do not take into consideration that benefits would generally have been reinstated in some situations once the claimants demonstrated that they were fulfilling their responsibilities.

Coverage of Employment Insurance regular benefits

The share of the unemployed population covered by the EI program is represented by the coverage rate of EI regular benefits, which is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed EI contributors (those who had insurable employment and contributed to the EI program by paying premiums within the previous 52 weeks) by the total number of unemployed individuals in Canada. In 2018, the coverage rate was 63.9%, a slight increase from 63.0% in 2017.

Higher EI coverage rates are usually observed during economic downturns, as slowing economic activities lead to layoffs that increase the share of unemployed EI contributors among all unemployed individuals. The coverage rates within the past decade in Canada peaked in 2008 and 2009, corresponding with the FY0809 recession and rose again during the downturn in commodity prices in 2015 and 2016 (see Chart 12).

Text description of Chart 12

Category	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Employment Insurance coverage rates	68.0%	70.0%	70.1%	70.3%	64.7%	64.5%	61.7%	62.5%	61.0%	65.3%	65.3%	63.0%	63.9%

• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2006 to 2018.

By province, Prince Edward Island posted the highest coverage rate (91.0%) in 2018, while Ontario had the lowest rate (59.6%) (see Table 13). Historically, Atlantic provinces have higher coverage rates than the rest of the country—this can be explained by the prevalence of the seasonal employment pattern in that region.^{Footnote 24}

On the basis of gender, 68.3% of unemployed men contributed EI premiums in 2018, compared to 58.1% of unemployed women. The lower coverage rate among unemployed women can be explained by the fact that women are less likely to have recent insurable employment compared to unemployed men. Coverage rates among unemployed youth tend to be significantly lower than those of unemployed adults because they are more likely to have never worked.

When the unemployed population is categorized by their previous work pattern, it can be seen that a lower share of unemployed individuals who occupied permanent jobs contributed EI premiums (72.1%) than those who were in non-permanent jobs (81.1%). This can be explained by the high coverage rate of unemployed individuals who worked in non-permanent seasonal jobs (86.9%). As these individuals work for few weeks or months on a cyclical pattern over a year, they are more likely to have paid EI premiums in the previous 52 weeks than other individuals who were in permanent jobs that might be unemployed for more than a year. Among unemployed individuals who previously held permanent jobs, those who had full-time jobs posted a higher coverage rate (74.0%) than those who had part-time jobs (67.1%).

Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits

As mentioned previously, to be eligible for EI regular benefits, unemployed individuals must have paid EI premiums, have had a valid reason for job separation and have accumulated enough hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period. The eligibility rate represents the share of the unemployed individuals who have accumulated enough hours of insurable employment among those who meet the other 2 eligibility criteria (paid premiums and had a valid reason for job separation).

As illustrated by the all unemployed individuals line in Chart 13, the eligibility rate for EI regular benefits in Canada has ranged from 78.4% to 87.4% in the past decade. The rate increased from 84.3% in 2017 to 87.4% in 2018, the highest rate over the past 10 years. The overall increase in 2018 was driven particularly by youth and by individuals in Ontario.

Text description of Chart 13

Category	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
All unemployed individuals	82.2%	86.2%	83.9%	78.4%	81.9%	85.8%	83.1%	82.8%	85.4%	84.3%	87.4%
Unemployed individuals who were in permanent employment	87.6%	92.2%	92.4%	87.2%	89.9%	91.4%	87.7%	90.0%	92.8%	91.7%	92.8%
Unemployed individuals who were in temporary employment	73.5%	75.3%	72.3%	68.3%	72.2%	79.0%	77.7%	72.2%	75.7%	76.7%	80.1%

• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2008 to 2018.

The eligibility rates for EI regular benefits are sensitive to economic conditions and specific employment patterns during the qualifying period, such as the incidence of full-time versus part-time hours, permanent versus temporary employment, etc. Because of this, significant variations are found when unemployed individuals are classified based on regional, demographic and previous employment characteristics.

Among all provinces in 2018, the highest eligibility rate was observed in Prince Edward Island (98.2%) while the lowest was in Alberta (79.6%) (see Table 14). Compared with the previous year, the eligibility rate increased in 4 provinces, notably in Ontario, decreased in 3 provinces and remained relatively unchanged in the other 3 provinces in 2018. With the larger demographic weight of Ontario compared to other provinces, the rise of eligibility rate in this province was responsible for much of the overall increase at the national level. Nevertheless, Atlantic provinces continue to have the highest eligibility rate among all provinces in Canada, whereas Ontario and the Western provinces have comparatively lower eligibility rates. An internal analysis^{Footnote 25} also found that urban EI economic regions have lower eligibility rate (84%) compared to rural EI economic regions (90%).

Unemployed men tend to have higher eligibility rates than unemployed women, which may be attributable to the fact that a higher proportion of men hold full-time and/or permanent jobs while a higher proportion of women work in part-time and/or temporary jobs. In 2018, the eligibility rate for men was 88.3% compared to 86.1% for women.

In terms of age groups, unemployed youth aged 24 years and under had the lowest eligibility rate (60.5%) in 2018, compared to unemployed individuals aged between 25 and 44 years (90.7%) and those aged 45 years and over (90.5%) (see Table 14). The largest variation in eligibility rates in 2018 compared to the previous year was observed for youth^{Footnote 26} (+19.8 percentage points) while the eligibility rate of unemployed individuals in the other 2 age groups showed little change.

Eligibility rates also vary across different employment characteristics. Intuitively, unemployed individuals who previously held full-time positions would be more likely to have accumulated the required number of hours of insurable employment and have a higher eligibility rate than those in part-time jobs. Similarly, unemployed individuals who previously had permanent jobs would be more likely to post a higher eligibility rate than those who had temporary employment.

Chart 13 above shows that the eligibility rate for unemployed people who held permanent positions ranged between 87.2% and 92.8%, while the eligibility rate for those who occupied temporary work ranged between 68.3% and 80.1% over the past decade.

Chart 14 presents the eligibility rates by previous work pattern where permanent employment is further classified in 2 categories, full-time work and part-time work, and temporary employment is also split between seasonal and non-seasonal jobs.

Text description of Chart 14

Category	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Permanent full-time	92.7%	94.3%	94.5%	91.2%	94.6%	95.0%	90.1%	93.3%	95.3%	94.5%	93.6%
Permanent part-time	47.7%	68.8%	74.4%	54.9%	65.2%	71.4%	66.2%	65.8%	62.4%	69.3%	86.0%
Temporary seasonal	85.0%	81.4%	83.6%	81.2%	75.6%	85.1%	84.6%	82.6%	87.5%	86.7%	82.0%
Temporary non-seasonal	63.8%	70.5%	64.7%	60.0%	69.8%	74.5%	73.0%	64.0%	66.4%	66.8%	78.5%

• ^E As per the EICS release guidelines, this estimate should be used with caution.
• Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2008 to 2018.

The eligibility rate for unemployed individuals who held permanent full-time jobs continued to be the highest across the different previous work patterns in 2018 (see Chart 14). The eligibility rate for unemployed individuals who worked in temporary seasonal jobs decreased from 86.7% in 2017 to 82.0% in 2018, lower than the rate of those who were in permanent part-time work. The eligibility rate for this latter group posted a notable rise (+16.7 percentage points) between 2017 and 2018,^{Footnote 27} as well as for unemployed individuals who occupied temporary non-seasonal work (+11.7 percentage points). These increases in 2018 may be explained by the fact that a higher proportion of unemployed people whose previous employment fall under these 2 categories quit their job without a valid reason for separation compared to 2017, excluding them from the denominator of the eligibility rate. These unemployed people are generally youth who are less likely to accumulate sufficient hours of insurable employment.

Eligibility for EI regular benefits has also been estimated in the past using Record of Employment data to estimate the proportion of job separators who met the required number of hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI regular benefits. Results based on this methodology can be found in the 2017/2018 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report.

Access to Employment Insurance regular benefits

Access to EI regular benefits is another way to measure how well the EI program is functioning to meet the needs of Canada’s unemployed population in helping them transition to new employment. For the purpose of the EI Monitoring and Assessment Report, 2 ratios are used to measure accessibility to EI regular benefits: the Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) ratio and the Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) ratio.

The Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) ratio

The Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) ratio is calculated by expressing the average number of EI regular beneficiaries that comes from Statistics Canada’s monthly EI Statistics releases as a share of the overall unemployed population obtained from the EICS.^{Footnote 28} As such, it includes a significant segment of the unemployed population who are ineligible for EI regular benefits (such as those who did not work in the previous year or never worked, who did not have a valid job separation, and those who were self-employed). Because of this, the B/U ratio is sensitive to changes in the composition of the unemployed population and the proportion of the unemployed individuals outside the scope of the EI program coverage.

Text description of Chart 15

Category	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) Ratio	38.4%	38.6%	39.8%	41.8%	42.1%	39.3%
Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) Ratio	61.5%	63.4%	61.0%	64.0%	66.9%	61.5%

• Sources: Statistics Canada, monthly Employment Insurance statistics release, Table 14-10-0010-01 (for data on EI regular beneficiaries (B)); and Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (for data on the number of unemployed (U) and the number of unemployed contributors (UC)).

Maximum and actual duration of Employment Insurance regular benefits

As mentioned, the maximum entitlement of EI regular benefits available to an EI claimant is between 14 and 45 weeks. Higher maximums are associated with greater hours of insurable employment accumulated during the qualifying period and higher regional unemployment rates. The EI program is designed to respond automatically to changes in economic conditions that affect local labour markets. In general, when a region’s unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirements are reduced and the maximum entitlement of benefits increases. Therefore, the number of weeks of EI benefits provided adjusts to the changing needs of unemployed individuals in different regions and communities with different labour market conditions.

The maximum entitlement is the maximum number of weeks during which benefits may be paid for a claim, whereas the actual duration of a claim is the number of weeks of benefits an EI claimant actually receives during a claim.^{Footnote 35} Average actual duration of EI regular claims is usually lower than the maximum entitlement, reflecting circumstances that can lead to reduced use of EI regular benefits over a claim’s benefit period (such as the claimant has found work and is no longer unemployed, has switched to EI special benefits or became unavailable to work^{Footnote 36}).

As illustrated in Chart 18, the average maximum entitlement of completed EI regular claims decreased from 32.6 weeks in FY1718 to 30.3 weeks in FY1819 (-2.3 weeks or -7.2%). The average actual duration, on the other hand, decreased from 20.3 weeks in FY1718 to 18.2 weeks in FY1819 (-2.0 weeks or -9.9%). This decline in both durations is attributable, in part, to the continued improvement in labour market condition from last year in several provinces and territories,^{Footnote 37} and the conclusion of the temporary EI support measure introduced through the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No.1, which temporarily extended the duration of EI regular benefits for eligible claimants in 15 EI economic regions most affected by the downturn in commodity prices observed in late 2014.^{Footnote 38} Effects of this measure on EI regular claims are presented later in this subsection.

Text description of Chart 18

Category	FY0910	FY1011	FY1112	FY1213	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Average actual duration in weeks (left scale)	21.9	24.0	21.6	20.1	19.7	19.4	19.3	20.7	20.3	18.2
Average maximum duration in weeks (left scale)	38.8	41.7	35.4	33.0	32.1	31.6	32.1	33.7	32.6	30.3
Unemloyment rate (right scale)	8.5%	7.9%	7.5%	7.2%	7.0%	6.9%	7.0%	6.9%	6.1%	5.8%

• Note: Includes all claims completed during the fiscal year for which at least $1 of EI regular benefits was paid.
• * Coincides with the Employment Insurance temporary measures that increased the maximum number of weeks for which EI regular benefits could be paid.
• ^p Preliminary data.
• ^r Revised data.
• Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data (for durations of EI regular benefits); and Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, Table 14-10-0287-01 (for data on unemployment rates). EI administrative data are based on a 10% sample.

The average maximum entitlement of EI regular claims completed in FY1819 varied significantly across provinces and territories, reflecting differences in regional labour market and labour force characteristics, as outlined in Table 18. As in the previous year, EI regular claims established in Nunavut had the highest average maximum entitlement (42.1 weeks) in the reporting year, followed by Newfoundland and Labrador (39.9 weeks). These significantly higher maximum entitlements compared to the national average can be explained by the high unemployment rate observed in these jurisdictions (the unemployment rate was 14.2% in Nunavut and 13.0% in Newfoundland and Labrador in FY1819).^{Footnote 39} In comparison, EI regular claims established in Yukon had the lowest average maximum entitlement (27.1 weeks), followed by Quebec (27.7 weeks), corresponding to the low unemployment rates generally observed in these jurisdictions (the unemployment rate in Yukon and Quebec was 3.2% and 5.4% in FY1819, respectively).^{Footnote 40}

The average maximum entitlement of EI regular claims were higher for men, and those aged between 45 and 54 years in FY1819. Long-tenured workers generally have higher maximum entitlements than occasional and frequent claimants, as they are more likely to accumulate hours of insurable employment well above the minimum requirements for EI regular benefits (see Table 18). 

Similar to the average maximum entitlement, the average actual duration of EI regular benefits in provinces and territories are also affected by regional labour market conditions, leading to variations across provinces and territories (see Table 18). As the EI program uses the regional unemployment rate as a proxy for availability of work, claims established for EI regular benefits in regions with higher unemployment rates generally have a higher average actual duration than those established in regions with lower unemployment rates. In FY1819, EI regular claims established in Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest average actual duration (28.4 weeks), closely followed by Nunavut (28.2 weeks), attributable to the high unemployment rates observed in these provinces and territories. In comparison, EI regular claims established in Quebec had the lowest average actual duration (15.4 weeks), corresponding to the low unemployment rate observed in FY1819. Notably, the average actual duration of EI regular claims decreased in all provinces and territories in FY1819 compared to the previous year, except for Northwest Territories. Claims established in Alberta had the largest decline on average (-7.2 weeks or -25.2%), attributable to the conclusion of the extension of EI regular benefits for eligible claimants affected by the downturn in commodity prices in late 2014. EI regular claims established in Nunavut and Newfoundland and Labrador also saw significant decreases in their average duration (-4.6 weeks or -14.1%, and -4.2 weeks or -12.9%, respectively).

In terms of industry classification, as outlined in Annex 2.6.2, completed EI regular claims by unemployed individuals from the Finance and insurance industry had the highest average actual duration (23.7 weeks) in FY1819. Notably, the average actual duration decreased in each industry in the reporting year compared to the previous year. This decline was the most significant in the Mining and oil and gas extraction industry (-5.9 weeks or -21.8%), likely attributable to the conclusion of the temporary extension of the duration of EI regular benefits for eligible workers who were affected by commodity prices downturn. As in past years, EI regular claims from the Educational services industry had the lowest average actual duration (11.8 weeks) in FY1819, due to its seasonal nature and the relatively short and well-defined “off-season” over the summer months.

Proportion of Employment Insurance regular benefit weeks used

The average proportion of regular benefit weeks used is defined as the average number of weeks of EI regular benefits received by claimants as a share of their maximum entitlement. As with the duration of EI regular benefits, a few factors may influence the proportion of entitlement used by claimants; for instance, the number of hours of insurable employment and the regional unemployment rates. Claimants with greater hours of insurable employment and those residing in regions with lower unemployment rates are more likely to find employment following a job separation, and thus use a lower proportion of their maximum entitlement for EI regular benefits. Consequently, greater maximum entitlements are generally associated with lower proportions of regular benefits’ weeks used.

As outlined in Table 19, the average proportion of EI regular benefit weeks used was 62.9% in FY1819, down from 64.2% in FY1718 (-1.3 percentage points). This average proportion went down in all provinces and territories in the reporting year compared to the previous year, except Ontario where it remained unchanged. The most significant change was observed in Nunavut (-7.2 percentage points). Across provinces and territories, the average proportion of regular benefit weeks used by claimants varied—from the lowest observed in Quebec (59.8%) to the highest in Yukon (74.6%). Generally, the average proportions of benefit weeks used were above the national average in the Atlantic provinces and in the Territories in FY1819.

In FY1819, the average proportion of regular benefit entitlement weeks used by women and men were identical. In terms of age group, the average proportion of regular benefit entitlement used increased with age—with the older claimants (aged 55 and over) having used the highest proportion of their regular benefit entitlement and the younger claimants (aged 24 years or less) having used the lowest proportion.

Frequent claimants for EI benefits receive relatively shorter entitlements on average compared to long-tenured workers, leading them to use a greater proportion of their entitlement for EI regular benefits.^{Footnote 41} Also, long-tenured workers have stronger labour market attachment, as indicated by the number of hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period, relative to frequent claimants, which explains the difference between their average proportion of regular benefit weeks used as they have a higher average maximum entitlement. This also applies to claimants working while on claim, as they may have a stronger labour market attachment and may also defer weeks of EI regular benefits—leading to a lower proportion of their entitlement weeks used compared to claimants who did not work while on claim (see Table 19).^{Footnote 42}

Table 20 outlines the proportion of entitlement used by weeks of entitlement and regional unemployment rate^{Footnote 43} in FY1718 and FY1819. The proportion of entitlement used generally fell as entitlement weeks increased, as claimants with shorter entitlements tend to use a greater proportion of their entitlement. Proportion of EI regular benefit weeks used, on the other hand, generally increased with the regional unemployment rate. Regions with higher unemployment rates are often characterized by weaker labour market conditions. This is partly attributable to the greater importance of seasonal employment and the relatively smaller share of permanent employment in these regions, leading to a larger share of frequent EI claimants in these regions relative to those with lower unemployment rates. This is reflected in the higher proportion of entitlement used in EI economic regions with relatively higher unemployment rates, as frequent claimants tend to use a greater proportion of their entitlement.

Conclusion of the extension of Employment Insurance regular benefits for workers in regions affected by the downturn in commodity prices

Following the global downturn in commodity prices in late 2014, the Government of Canada introduced temporary measures to provide eligible workers in 15 EI economic regions that were hit the hardest by this event. Through this measure, all eligible EI claimants who had established a claim between January 4, 2015 and July 8, 2017 and remained unemployed had their EI regular benefit weeks extended by 5 weeks, while long-tenured workers^{Footnote 44} received up to 20 weeks of EI regular benefits in addition, for a total of up to 25 weeks.^{Footnote 45} These extended benefits were available for 1 year, starting from July 3, 2016. In order to claim the additional weeks of EI regular benefits, eligible claimants had their benefit period extended by the number of additional weeks of benefits they were entitled to receive, plus 12 weeks. As the last effective day in order to be eligible for these additional benefits was July 8, 2017, no EI regular claims established in the reporting year was affected by this measure. However, eligible claims, especially those by long-tenured workers, that were established on or near the last effective day of the measure could still receive extended benefits in FY1819.

A total of 354,440 claims that were established between January 4, 2015 and July 8, 2017 received additional weeks of EI benefits because of this measure, representing 45.4% of all potentially eligible claims. Almost half (45.6%) of the total number of claims with additional weeks of benefits were established in Alberta,^{Footnote 46} followed by Newfoundland and Labrador (18.3%), as the commodity-based industries in Canada are concentrated in these provinces. Almost two-thirds (62.6%) of the total claims with additional weeks of benefits were established by men, while non long-tenured workers accounted for almost three-quarters (73.2%) of the total claims with additional weeks of benefits through this measure.^{Footnote 47}

While some eligible claimants did not use any additional weeks from the temporary extension measure, they nevertheless benefited from the benefit period extension, as they either claimed weeks of EI regular benefits from their original entitlement or weeks of special benefits during the benefit period extension. Table 21 outlines the average durations and the average amount received by these claims over the course of the measure. Completed EI regular claims that received at least 1 week of additional benefits and/or at least 1 week of EI benefits during their extended benefit period received an average of $16,334 over their entire duration. Excluding the extra weeks of benefits received due to the temporary extension measure, on average these claims received $12,100 in EI benefits. This increase in the EI benefits received likely prevented a subsequent claim from the same claimant being established or it displaced subsequent EI claim amounts from a subsequent claim. In comparison, claims established in these regions that did not benefit from the temporary extension measure received $7,839 on average over the same period.

As outlined in Table 22, a total of $2,068.5 million were paid to eligible EI claimants who benefited from the temporary extension of EI regular benefits in these 15 affected EI economic regions. Of this, $1,253.3 million were paid to eligible claimants who received additional weeks of EI regular benefits because of the temporary extension measure, while the other $815.2 million were associated with benefit payments to claimants who had qualified for EI regular benefits prior to the implementation of the measure, or special benefits that were paid during their benefit period extension.

Duration of Employment Insurance regular benefits among seasonal claimants

The average maximum entitlement^{Footnote 53} of seasonal regular claims completed^{Footnote 54} in the reporting fiscal year was 28.3 weeks, down from 29.8 weeks (-1.5 weeks or -5.2%) in FY1718. In comparison, the average maximum entitlement of completed non-seasonal regular claims was 31.1 weeks in the reporting fiscal year, down from 33.8 weeks (-2.7 weeks or -7.9%) in FY1718.

The average actual duration^{Footnote 55} of seasonal regular claims completed in FY1819 was 16.0 weeks, decreasing from 17.9 weeks (-1.9 weeks or -10.7%) in FY1718. In comparison, the average actual duration of non-seasonal regular claims in FY1819 was 19.2 weeks, decreasing from 21.2 weeks (-2.1 weeks or -9.7%) in FY1718. The average maximum entitlement and the average actual duration of seasonal regular claims are generally shorter than those for non-seasonal regular claims, reflecting the fact that seasonal claimants typically accumulate fewer hours of insurable employment prior to establishing a claim than non-seasonal claimants.

Overlapping definitions of seasonal and frequent claimants

Frequent EI claimants are defined as those who have had 3 or more regular or fishing claims and have collected benefits for more than 60 weeks in total within the past 5 years. There is a significant overlap between frequent and seasonal claimants.^{Footnote 56}

Frequent and seasonal EI claimants differ in 2 criteria:

• frequent claimants must have received more than 60 weeks of EI regular or fishing benefits, whereas seasonal claimants do not need to have received EI benefits for a specific number of weeks, and
• the timing of establishing claims determines a claimant’s status as seasonal, whereas this is not the case for defining frequent claimants

Chart 21 outlines the number of EI regular claims established by frequent and seasonal claimants in the past 10 years. During this period, in terms of EI regular benefits, the number of seasonal claimants were much higher than the frequent claimants. This suggests that many seasonal regular claimants collect less than 60 weeks of EI regular benefits over the course of 5 fiscal years, while a large proportion of frequent claimants can also be considered seasonal. This is evident in Chart 22—in FY1819, the number of claims established by seasonal and frequent claimants (235,400) were almost 1.5 times the number of claims established by seasonal claimants that were non-frequent claimants (159,900).

Text description of Chart 21

Category	Distribution of seasonal regular claims in quarter 1 (April to June) (%)	Distribution of seasonal regular claims in quarter 2 (July to September) (%)	Distribution of seasonal regular claims in quarter 3 (October to December) (%)	Distribution of seasonal regular claims in quarter 4 (January to March) (%)
Men	8.7%	13.3%	61.1%	16.9%
Women	15.8%	49.5%	26.6%	8.1%
Goods-producing-industries	6.3%	12.3%	64.3%	17.1%
Services-producing industries	15.5%	39.2%	34.6%	10.6%
Unclassified*	8.3%	13.9%	58.4%	19.3%
Canada	11.4%	27.1%	48.0%	13.6%

• Note: Includes claims for which at least $1 of EI regular benefits was paid.
• * See Annex 2.1 for definitions of frequent and seasonal claimants referenced in this chart.
• Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

Text description of Chart 22

Category	Frequent, non-seasonal	Frequent and seasonal	Non-frequent, seasonal
Level of claims	61,890	235,420	159,860;
Share of total frequent and seasonal claims	13.5%	51.5%	35.0%

• Note: Includes claims for which at least $1 of EI regular benefits was paid.
• *See Annex 2.1 for definitions of frequent and seasonal claimants referenced in this chart.
• Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

As outlined in Table 25, the 2 non-overlapping populations by claimant type (that are, the frequent, non-seasonal claimants and the non-frequent, seasonal claimants) had different characteristics in terms of duration, proportion of regular benefits paid and exhaustion rate in FY1819. Frequent non-seasonal claimants were paid, on average, for a much longer duration, used a greater proportion of their regular weeks of entitlement and were more likely to exhaust their entitlement than non-frequent, seasonal claimants. However, once defined as frequent claimants, there are no observed differences in the proportion of regular weeks paid and the exhaustion rate between non-seasonal and seasonal claimants.   

Entitlement exhaustion of Employment Insurance regular benefits

Of the EI regular claims completed during FY1819, 445,500 claims (32.4%) were completed with their regular benefit entitlement exhausted. As shown in Chart 23, the volume of EI regular claims with exhausted entitlement has decreased from 484,000 to 445,500, representing 38,500 claims or -8.0% between FY1718 and FY1819, after remaining relatively stable at around 485,000 over the past 2 years. This decline can be attributed to an improvement in economic conditions observed in 2018 and during the first quarter of 2019. During the reporting period, the national unemployment rate fell to an average of 5.8%, down from 6.1% in FY1718, the lowest annual rate since 1976. Over the same period, employment continued to strengthen in the second half of 2018 and during the first half of 2019 supported by growth in full-time jobs and among private sector workers - see Chapter 1 for detailed discussion on Canada's labour market in FY1819. 

Text description of Chart 23

Entitlement	FY1112	FY1213	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Entitlement exhaustion claims (in thousands) (left scale)	460.0	455.2	458.1	456.0	425.8	486.1	484.0	445.5
Entitlement exhaustion rate (right scale)	30.0%	31.8%	33.5%	33.3%	31.2%	34.9%	34.1%	32.4%

In FY1819, the exhaustion rates decreased in all provinces and territories, except New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta where they were relatively unchanged. As illustrated in Table 26, the most notable decreases in exhaustion rates were in Newfoundland and Labrador, the territories, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. By gender, claims established by women tend to have a higher entitlement exhaustion rate than those established by men. This is due, in part, to women on average qualifying for fewer weeks of EI regular benefit entitlement. Among age groups, claims established by claimants aged 55 years old and over posted the highest exhaustion rate (38.8%), followed by claimants under 25 years old (32.9%). The remaining 2 age groups had a lower exhaustion rate than the national level.

Benefit period exhaustion vs entitlement exhaustion

Claims may also end because their benefit period - the period during which an EI claimant can receive EI benefits^{Footnote 58} - ends before all potential regular benefit weeks of entitlement have been paid. When this occurs, unless the claimant has stopped filing EI biweekly reports^{Footnote 59}, the claim is considered to have exhausted its benefit period. Claims that exhausted their benefits periods represented 17.8% of all completed regular claims in FY1819 (see Table 26).

The circumstances that result in benefit period exhaustion are generally different than those associated with entitlement exhaustion. There are many variables that influence benefit period exhaustion. These include regular benefit entitlement, weeks worked while on claim (leading to deferred benefit weeks) and the use of special benefits (adding another type of entitlement to the claim).

For instance, a much greater proportion of claims that exhausted the benefit period were associated with at least 1 week worked while on claim (70.6% in FY1819) compared with claims that were completed by entitlement exhaustion (33.7%) (see Table 27). Claims that exhausted the benefit period through Working While on Claim had, on average, a greater number of weeks worked while on claim (15 weeks in FY1819) compared to claims that exhausted their entitlement (11.5 weeks in FY1819). Claimants who exhaust their benefit period are thus more likely to accumulate enough hours of insurable employment during their benefit period to meet the eligibility requirements to establish a new claim following the end of their claim. As a result, a much greater proportion of claimants who exhausted their benefit period requalified for a new claim within 4 weeks following the termination of their claim (69.9% in FY1819 compared to 9.9% for claims that exhausted their entitlement).

Exhaustion type is also reflective of the characteristics of a beneficiary's claim. A greater share of claims that have exhausted their benefit period had an interaction with special benefits (18.4%) compared with claims that exhausted their entitlement (11.8%). Claims that exhausted the benefit period were also paid fewer weeks of EI regular benefits (17.8 weeks) compared to claims that exhausted their entitlement (26.3 weeks).

Entitlement exhaustion of Employment Insurance regular benefits: seasonal and non-seasonal gappers

Entitlement exhaustion rates for the current reporting year are lower for seasonal claims^{Footnote 60} (23.0%) than non-seasonal claims (36.3%) (see Table 27). This is attributable to the fact that many seasonal employees are laid off temporarily and are likely to find work in the same industry and possibly with the same employer the following season.

Claimants who exhaust their entitlement weeks without finding work may go through a period without income from either employment or EI benefits. These claimants, known as “gappers”, have not accumulated sufficient hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period for their entitlement to cover the entire duration of their unemployment spell. While this is especially common for seasonal claimants, it can affect non-seasonal claimants as well.

Starting with the FY1718 EI Monitoring and Assessment Report, the definition of gappers was broadened to better represent the levels of EI claimants experiencing periods with no income. To be considered a gapper, a claimant must have established a regular claim during the reporting fiscal year, have completed their previous regular benefit claim during the reporting fiscal year or the previous fiscal year and must have experienced a period without employment income or EI income immediately following the exhaustion of the preceding claim. The period with no income must be 15 weeks or less. Of the 1.29 million regular claims in FY1819, approximately 83,750 (6.5%) experienced a gap in income. There were 38,100 seasonal claimants and 45,650 non-seasonal claimants (see Table 28) that experienced a gap in income. Of the 83,750 gappers, the average length of their gap was 5.3 weeks.

The regional distribution of these gappers is presented in Chart 24. All provinces and territories, except Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, were overrepresented among gappers compared to the overall national share of gappers (6.5%). This is mostly attributable to the composition of the local labour markets.

Text description of Chart 24

Region	Gapper claims	Share of all regular claims
Newfoundland and Labrador	5,160	7.7%
Prince Edward Island	1,510	9.7%
Nova Scotia	5,270	8.5%
New Brunswick	6,340	9.3%
Quebec	26,890	7.0%
Ontario	19,000	5.2%
Manitoba	3,030	7.1%
Saskatchewan	2,360	6.3%
Alberta	6,630	5.2%
British Columbia	7,130	5.9%
Territories	430	10.4%
Canada	83,750	6.5%

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

Number of Employment Insurance regular claims and claimants working while on claim

The use of the WWC provision is presented using 2 different approaches: one based on claimants who had an active regular claim^{Footnote 66} during the reporting fiscal year (regardless of the year in which their claim was established) and the other based on regular claims completed in the reporting fiscal year. These 2 approaches provide different but complementary WWC results. The first approach, which focuses on the WWC activity in the fiscal year under review, better reflects the labour market conditions and WWC provisions in effect during the reporting period. The second approach provides a better estimate of the relative incidence of WWC because it is based on the entire duration of the claim (rather than a specific time period as under the first approach).

Of all EI regular benefit claimants with an active claim in FY1819, 730,000 (or 43.1%) worked at least 1 week while on claim in that fiscal year (see Table 29). In that same period, 49.8% of all completed regular claims included at least 1 week worked while on claim.

The proportion of regular benefit claimants (or completed claims) with at least 1 week worked while on claim varies by, among other things, region and industry, which may be partly explained by local labour market conditions in the regions where the claimants resided. The greater shares of EI regular benefit claimants who worked at least 1 week while on claim are related to regions and industries that have a higher proportion of seasonal claimants, such as the Atlantic provinces (50.9%), Quebec (51.0%), and the Educational services (57.7%) and Construction (48.6%) industries. This may be due in part to limited available hours of work during the “off-peak season” and better opportunities for re-employment should the benefit period of claimants exceed the “off-peak season” duration.

Weeks worked while on claim

This subsection examines the WWC provision in relation to the number of weeks worked while on claim. Specifically, it examines whether employment income was reported during a week in which a claimant was entitled to receive EI regular benefits during the fiscal year, regardless of when the claim was established.

The proportion of weeks of EI regular benefits worked while on claim (23.4% in FY1819) among weeks for which claimants were entitled to receive EI regular benefits remained largely unchanged from the previous fiscal year, and remained relatively stable over the past 4 years after declining since early 2010 (see Chart 25). The average number of weeks worked while on claim, which has followed a slight downward trend in recent years, decreased slightly from 11.4 weeks in FY1718 to 10.9 weeks in FY1819.

Text description of Chart 25

Category	FY1112	FY1213	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Average number of weeks worked while on claim (left scale)	13.1	14.0	12.0	11.5	11.2	11.2	11.4	10.9
Share of all EI regular weeks worked while on claim (right scale)	27.4%	26.6%	25.0%	24.2%	22.9%	23.2%	23.5%	23.4%

An analysis by demographic characteristics shows that the proportion of weeks worked while on claim varied in the same way as the proportion of claimants who worked at least 1 week while on claim. Seasonal claimants, women, claimants aged 45 to 54, and claimants in the Atlantic and Quebec provinces had higher proportions of weeks worked while on claim than the national average (see Table 30).

Overall, changes to the WWC pilot projects over the years since 2005, combined with changes in economic conditions, have contributed, at various levels, to encouraging claimants to work more while on claim and to changing trends in the number of weeks worked while on claim and in the intensity of work. A 2018 departmental evaluation^{Footnote 67} of the impact of the various WWC pilot projects confirmed these observations.

The evaluation first examined the effects of Pilot Projects 8, 12 and 17^{Footnote 68} compared to previous legislative rules. Those pilot projects increased the eligibility threshold of employment income that claimants could earn to $75 or 40% of the weekly benefit rate (whichever is greater) before benefits were reduced dollar-for-dollar, compared to $50 or 25% of the weekly benefit under the Act. The evaluation results demonstrated that Pilot Projects 8, 12 and 17 partially met the objective of encouraging claimants to work more while on claim. They increased the likelihood of claimants working, but only for levels of work where claimants could still receive all or part of their benefits. They reduced the probability of working for claimants whose EI benefits were reduced to zero. As a result, the evaluation indicated that the duration of work performed while on claim did not increase under Pilot Projects 8, 12 and 17.

The evaluation also compared the impact of Pilot Projects 8, 12 and 17 to those of Pilot Projects 18 and 19^{Footnote 69}, which had the same parameters as Pilot Project 20 in effect during the fiscal year under review; that is, the “50 cents on the dollar rule”. Unlike previous EI pilot projects where EI benefits were reduced dollar-for-dollar above a set threshold, a claimant’s total income (EI benefits and employment earnings) increased proportionately to the number of hours worked until it reached 90% of weekly insurable earnings under Pilot Projects 18 and 19. The results of the evaluation showed that the latter pilots encouraged claimants not eligible to revert to the alternate earnings rule^{Footnote 70} (97% of claimants) to work more while on claim for all levels of earned employment income. The greatest impact was observed for levels of work above which claimants received more EI benefits compared to previous pilot projects. The evaluation also found that the number of weeks worked increased by approximately 1 week under Pilot Projects 18 and 19. However, they discouraged the majority of claimants eligible for the alternate earnings rule (that is, the remaining 3% of claimants) who were less likely to work than under previous pilot projects.

As a result, the provisions of the most recent pilot projects in effect have likely smoothed the distribution of hours worked by EI claimants, compared to other pilot projects or the legislation, and have contributed to a greater intensity of work.

This increase in work intensity since the implementation of WWC Pilot Project 18 is also reflected in the average weekly earnings (that is, weekly EI regular benefits and employment earnings) of EI regular claimants who worked while on claim. Table 31 shows that the difference, in real terms, between the total weekly income of claimants who work while on claim and those who do not work is larger since the provisions of Pilot Project 18 came into effect in August 2012. This large difference is mainly due to higher real average weekly employment earnings reported during weeks worked while on claim, under the provisions of Pilot Projects 18, 19 and 20 ($794 in the fiscal year covered in the report). Table 31 also shows that although claimants who worked while on claim had, on average, a higher total weekly income over the entire claim period compared to those who did not work while on claim, they received on average less EI benefits ($325 per week compared to $436 for those who did not work while on claim).

Employment Insurance claims from apprentices and amount paid

In FY1819, apprentices established 50,200 new claims, an increase of 4,300 claims or +9.3% from the previous year. The number of claims increased in all provinces and territories, except Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. In relative terms, provinces with the largest year-over-year increase were Prince Edward Island (+41.7%), followed by Nova Scotia (+20.0%), Ontario (+18.7%), and British Columbia (+11.6%). The largest decrease was in Newfoundland and Labrador (-20.6%).

Outside of periods of full-time training and during the benefit period of a claim, an apprentice may experience a loss of employment income due to circumstances that may require the apprentice to access other types of EI benefits (for instance, regular benefits for lack of available work or special benefits for care for a newborn child). The claimant may claim those benefits if he or she meets the eligibility requirements for the relevant EI benefits. Of all claims established by apprentices in the reporting fiscal year, 35.8% (or 18,000 claims) contained at least 1 week of regular benefits paid outside of periods of full-time training. Meanwhile, 1.3% (or 640 claims) contained at least 1 week of special benefits paid outside of periods of full-time training, including 560 claims for sickness benefits.

The total amount of EI benefits paid to apprentices rose by +2.5% to $294.3 million compared to the previous year and the largest relative increase among provinces occurred in Ontario (+23.3%) followed by Prince Edward Island (+18.5%). Of the total of $294.3 million paid in benefits, $213.7 million (or 72.6% of the total EI benefits paid to apprentices) were paid while the apprentices attended full-time technical training. EI regular benefits paid outside of periods of full-time training accounted for most of the remaining benefits paid to apprentices ($73.7 million or 25.1% of the total $294.3M EI benefits paid), with a small fraction paid in special benefits ($6.9M or 2.3%).

In FY1819, just over three-quarters of EI claims from apprentices were established in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Total benefits paid followed a similar distribution.

As in previous years, men established the vast majority of claims from apprentices (95.6% of all claims) and also accounted for the largest share of all EI benefits paid to apprentices (95.3%) in FY1819. The low proportion of claims by women and benefits paid to them is largely due to the low share of women amongst all apprenticeship-training registrations (13.6% in 2018).^{Footnote 76}

Claimants aged 25 to 44 years old established the largest share of EI claims associated with apprenticeship programs and full-time technical training (52.9%), followed by those aged 15 to 24 years old who accounted for 44.1%. Claimants aged 45 years and over accounted for almost half of all EI regular claims established, but only 3.0% of all EI apprenticeship claims. This is expected, as the incidence of job-related training declines with age, though the gap between older and younger workers appears to be shrinking over time.^{Footnote 77}

Similar to previous years, the majority of the apprentice claims established and amount paid were from the Construction sector (61.3% of claims established and 66.4% for amount paid) in FY1819 (see Table 33).

From the occupational grouping perspective, the majority of EI claimants participating in apprenticeship programs and attending full-time technical training were associated with the Trades and skilled transport and equipment operators occupational group^{Footnote 78} (91.2%). These claimants also received 90.7% of total benefits paid to apprentices. While apprentice claimants from this occupational group were mainly employed in the Construction sector, they were also found in Manufacturing, Other services (excluding Public administration) and Retail trade sectors.

Level and duration of Employment Insurance benefits for apprentices

During the reporting period, the average weekly benefit rate payable to apprentices increased by +2.2% to $502. Consistent with previous years, the average weekly benefit rate for apprentices was higher than the average for EI regular claims ($469) overall.

Similar to the previous year, apprentice claimants from the territories and Alberta received the highest average weekly benefit rate during the reporting period ($543 and $523, respectively). On average, the weekly benefit rate received was higher among men ($503) than women ($476) and among claimants aged between 25 and 44 years old ($513) compared to claimants over 45 years old ($505) and those under 25 years old ($486).

On a year-over-year basis, the average duration of EI regular claims completed^{Footnote 79} by EI claimants while on full-time technical training increased by 12.2%, from 8.1 weeks in the previous year to 9.1 weeks during the reporting fiscal year. Claims in Manitoba (9.6 weeks), Alberta (9.4 weeks), and Ontario (9.2 weeks) were above the national average (9.1 weeks). The average duration of EI regular benefits received by men and women while on full-time technical training was almost equal, with 9.0 weeks and 9.3 weeks respectively. Claimants aged 55 years or older received somewhat fewer weeks of benefits (6.8 weeks) relative to claimants under 25 years old (9.1 weeks) and aged between 25 and 54 years old (9.1 weeks).

Employment Insurance Work-Sharing claims and amount paid, by region, gender, age and industry

As outlined in Table 40, the most notable decline in the number of claims was in Ontario (-398 claims), followed by Atlantic Canada (-205 claims), the largest increase was in Manitoba (+428 claims), followed by Alberta (+197 claims) and Saskatchewan (+127 claims). Like in the previous year, claimants from Ontario established the largest share of total new claims (35.1%), followed by claimants from Quebec (26.2%) and Alberta (15.7%); however, in terms of amount paid, claims established in Quebec received the largest share of total amount paid with 32.1%, followed by claims established in Ontario (25.9%) and Alberta (19.0%) in FY1819. There were no claims established in the territories.

Men continue to be more likely to make use of the Work-Sharing program—a trend that has been persistent over the years. In FY1819 men accounted for 71.3% of new Work-Sharing claims and 74.1% of total benefits paid. Workers aged 25 to 54 years accounted for 65.2% of all new Work-Sharing claims and benefits. Similar to previous years, youth were under-represented among new Work-Sharing claims established (6.2%) and benefits paid (4.5%) compared with their total share of employment (13.1%) in FY1819.^{Footnote 88}

From an industry perspective, the Work-Sharing program was most frequently used by workers in the Manufacturing industry, which is consistent with historical patterns. Employees in the Manufacturing industry accounted for the largest share of new EI Work-Sharing claims (85.4%) established in FY1819, up from 77.0% in the previous fiscal year. These workers received the largest share of the total EI Work-Sharing benefits paid (80.3%), up from 64.3% in FY1718 (see Table 40), which was disproportionate to their share of total employment (which was around 9.4% in recent years).^{Footnote 89}

Among the services-producing industries, workers in the Wholesale trade and in the Professional, scientific and technical services industries each accounted for 1.7% of Work-Sharing claims. In terms of amount paid, workers in the Professional, scientific and technical services industry received 3.7% of total Work-Sharing benefits paid in FY1819, closely followed by workers in the Wholesale trade industry, who accounted for 3.4% of total Work-Sharing benefits paid in FY1819. See Annex 2.21.1 for detailed information on new claims established and Annex 2.21.4 for amount paid by industry.

2.5.3 Level and duration of Employment Insurance Work-Sharing benefits

The Work-Sharing program is designed to provide income support for workers in firms that experience temporary reductions in demand for reasons beyond their control. In view of this, the program provides partial income stabilization to offset reductions in hours that are agreed upon by the employees participating in the program. However, the program is not meant to provide full coverage of insurable hours or insurable earnings. As a result, the data reported on Work-Sharing claims are not directly comparable to other types of EI benefits. This is particularly true of the weekly benefit rates paid to claimants, which are meant to only cover 10% to 60% of a regular work week for affected employees in a work unit subject to a Work-Sharing agreement, depending on the agreed upon decrease in work levels. Because of this, the weekly benefit rates for Work-Sharing claimants are lower on average than for other types of EI benefits. Because the weekly Work-Sharing benefit rate is determined by employees’ wage and the degree of reductions in the hours worked (between 10% and 60%), significant variability is also observed across industries in the reported weekly benefit rates.

In FY1819, the average weekly Work-Sharing benefit rate increased by +10.4% to $121, up from the average weekly benefit rate of $109 in the previous fiscal year (see Table 41). Similar to the previous years, a high degree of variability can be observed among the average weekly benefit paid in each region in the fiscal year examined. For example, in FY1819, the highest average weekly benefit rate was in British Columbia ($167), followed by Atlantic provinces ($152) and Saskatchewan ($151), while the lowest was in Ontario ($105). The average weekly Work-Sharing benefit rate for men increased by 12.8% to $129, while the rate for women remained at the same level as the previous year ($99). The average weekly benefit rate for all age groups increased; the highest average rate was observed for workers aged 25 to 54 years ($122), followed by those aged below 25 years ($120) and those aged 55 years and over ($118).

The average weekly Work-Sharing benefit rate in goods-producing industries increased by +12.4% to $119 in FY1819. The average weekly Work-Sharing benefit rate increased to $133 from $123 in service-producing industries. See Annex 2.21.3 for detailed information on average Work-Sharing weekly benefit rate by industry.

The average duration of Work-Sharing claims completed in FY1819 was 15.5 weeks, a decrease of 8.3 weeks from FY1718 (23.8 weeks). This represents the first decline in the average duration of Work-Sharing claims since FY1516 (see Chart 30). This decrease in the duration of claims was driven mainly by the recovery of the economy observed during the reporting period.

Text description of Chart 30

Duration	FY1314	FY1415	FY1516	FY1617	FY1718	FY1819
Average duration (weeks)	12.9	15.6	14.4	17.4	23.8	15.5

• Note: Includes all claims for which at least $1 of Work-Sharing benefits was paid.
• ^r Revised
• ^P Preliminary estimates.
• Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 100% sample of EI administrative data.

2.5.4 Employment Insurance Work-Sharing agreements subject to early termination

When a firm returns to normal levels of business activity ahead of recovery plan timelines, or withdraws from the Work-Sharing agreement for other reasons (for example, the firm is shutting down or deciding to go ahead with layoffs),^{Footnote 90} the Work-Sharing agreement ends before the anticipated end date—this is referred to as early termination. During the last 5 fiscal years, just over one-third (36%) of agreements were terminated earlier than their scheduled end date and just over two-thirds (70%) of firms returned to their normal level of employment.

Employment Insurance special benefits and firms

According to 2017 tax data, which is the most recent microdata available when writing this report, there were approximately 203,400 firms (16.8% of all firms in 2017) which were associated with the establishment of an EI special benefit claim as a claimant’s current or most recent employer (see Table 43). This is an increase of 3.1% from 2016.

The distribution of the workforce and of EI special benefit claimants is roughly similar by firm size, which is unlike EI regular benefits in that larger firms are typically under-represented (see section 2.2). For special benefits, the biggest difference between employee and claimant distributions was observed in small-sized firms, with a difference of 2.9 percentage points. Workforce adjustment issues during a difficult business or economic context may offer some explanation of the higher relative use of EI regular benefits among small firms, the use of EI special benefits is more likely related to the demographic profile of the workforce, individual circumstances, and the nature of the work in the industry.

Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits: coverage and accessibility

According to the 2018 Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (EICS), 209,700 recent mothers (those with a child aged 12 months or less) living outside Quebec had insurable employment in 2018, which represents 71.5% of all recent mothers. Among these recent mothers with insurable employment, 85.4% reported having received maternity or parental benefits, which represents a slight decrease of 1.8 percentage points from 2017 (87.2%) (see Chart 31).

Text description of Chart 31

Year	Share of recent mothers
2000	74.2%
2001	79.4%
2002	86.0%
2003	87.8%
2004	87.7%
2005	85.0%
2006	81.0%
2007	81.8%
2008	85.8%
2009	85.4%
2010	84.9%
2011	85.1%
2012	85.4%
2013	89.3%
2014	86.1%
2015	83.0%
2016	88.8%
2017	87.2%
2018	85.4%

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2000 to 2018

According to EICS data, the proportion of spouses of recent mothers living outside Quebec who received or intended to claim EI parental benefits went from 11.9% in 2017 to 15.0% in 2018. In Quebec, a larger share of spouses of recent mothers received parental benefits or intended to receive them (79.6%), which may be largely due to the paternity benefits paid specifically to fathers as part of QPIP.

Employment Insurance maternity claims, amount paid and level of benefits

In FY1819, there were 170,000 new maternity claims established, which represents a slight decrease of 0.9% from the previous fiscal year (see Table 44).

Women between 25 and 39 years old established 87.6% of new maternity claims during the reporting period, while women aged 24 and under and those aged 40 years old and over represented 8.3% and 4.1%, respectively. While the number of new claims established by mothers aged 25 to 39 years old has remained stable, the number of claims for mothers 24 years old and under reported a large decrease (‑6.4%) compared to the previous year.

The total amount paid out in maternity benefits was nearly 1.2 billion dollars for FY1819, an increase of 1.2% from FY1718. The total amount paid increased in most provinces, notably in Nova Scotia (+6.0%), New Brunswick (+10.7%), Yukon (+11.2%) and Northwest Territories (+10.4%), where number of claims also increased. Notable decreases in amount paid include Prince Edward Island (-10.3%) and Nunavut (-14.8%). Women over 40 years old represented the group with the largest increase in maternity benefit payments (+4.2%).

Maternity benefits are frequently combined in the same claim with other benefit types, particularly parental and sickness benefits; 98.5% of all EI maternity claims completed during FY1819 included another type of EI benefit (see subsection 2.1.2).

The average weekly maternity benefit rate increased by 2.6% to $465 in FY1819. About half of all maternity claimants (51.2%) received the maximum weekly benefit rate. On average, the highest weekly maternity benefit rate was for claims established in Yukon ($506) and the Northwest Territories ($503) and by mothers aged 40 years old and over ($482).

Employment Insurance parental benefits, amount paid and level of benefits

The total number of new parental claims established increased by 1.0% over the previous year to reach 200,030 in FY1819 (see Table 45). About 16.0% of all parental claims were for extended parental benefits and less than 1.0% of all parental claims came from adoptive parents (approximately 1,500). Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Yukon and the Northwest Territories had the highest relative increases in new claims established.