Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2016 and ending March 31, 2017
Chapter II - 2. Employment Insurance regular benefits

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

In FY1617, the number of EI regular claims decreased in every province and territory except Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. The largest percentage decrease occurred in Newfoundland ( 18.1%), followed by Alberta (-15.9%), and British Columbia (-14.5%)—see Chart 7. Quebec and Ontario, which together accounted for 58.5% of all new regular claims, registered the decreases ( 16,700 and -24,000 respectively), in the number of claims established.

Text description of Chart 7

	% Change claims established	% Change amount paid
British Columbia	-14.5%	-0.2%
Alberta	-15.9%	51.7%
Saskatchewan	-13.9%	24.8%
Manitoba	-6.0%	4.1%
Ontario	-6.1%	-4.1%
Quebec	-4.0%	-7.8%
New Brunswick	-2.7%	-1.3%
Nova Scotia	1.0%	-1.2%
Prince Edward Island	0.7%	-0.9%
Newfoundland and Labrador	-18.1%	9.7%
Yukon	-4.9%	0.6%
Northwestern Territories	12.3%	-4.7%
Nunavut	13.2%	22.3%

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.

Like the number of new claims established, the total amount of EI regular benefits paid in the reporting period also fluctuated by province or territory (see Chart 7), with Alberta (+51.7%), Saskatchewan (+24.8%), and Nunavut (+22.3%) reporting the largest increases in percentage over the previous year, while Quebec ( 7.8%) and the Northwest Territories (-4.7%) reported the largest decreases. Furthermore, despite the decrease of their shares of benefit payments, Ontario and Quebec continued to account for the largest share of benefits paid (47.7%).

As for gender, the number of EI regular claims established decreased nationally for both men (-10.0%) and women (-3.7%), to 806,700 and 514,500 respectively (see Table 7). The largest decreases were observed among men and women from Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The decline in the number of new EI regular claims was higher for men than women across most provinces and territories, except Yukon (-4.0% for men vs. -6.8% for women). In Nova Scotia, the growth rate was about the same (+1.0% for men vs. +0.9% for women). Compared with the previous year, the share of claims made by men and women remained more or less unchanged at around 61.0% and 39.0%, respectively.

About 68.0% of the total amount paid in EI regular benefits went to men and around 32.0% to women. The amounts paid to men and women increased at about the same pace (+4.3% and +4.9% respectively) —see Table 7. Women either reported higher rates of increase or lower rates of decline in amounts paid in every province and territory with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Yukon. At the national level, FY1617 is the first year during the seven past years where men have not reported higher rates of growth than women in claims established as well as in amount paid over the last four years.

As Table 7 shows, there were decreases in the number of claims established by all age groups, with the largest decreases reported by claimants under 25 years old (-9.8%), followed by those 45 years and older ( 9.5%). Claimants between 25 and 44 years old made up the largest share of new claims (44.5%) in the reporting period, followed by those 55 years and older (23.3%). While the order of the shares of new claims established by these different age groups has been relatively stable over the previous year, the share of new claims established by those 55 years and older has increased slowly over time, rising 3.3 percentage points since FY1112.

Unlike for new EI regular claims, all age groups registered increases for EI regular benefits paid. The largest increase was reported by claimants aged 55 years and older (+9.4%). Further, as in the previous year, claimants between 25 and 44 years old accounted for the largest share of amounts paid (43.8%), followed by those aged 55 years and older (24.0%). The share of amount paid by age category has been relatively stable over the last year, with a slight increase in the share of amount paid (+1.1 percentage points – ppts) to those 55 years and older and slight declines in the share of amount paid to youth under 25 years old (-0.4 ppts), claimants between 25 and 44 years old (-0.3 ppts), and those between the ages of 45 and 54 (-0.4 ppts).

These trends are likely attributable in part to Canada’s aging population, as there is a positive correlation between the increase in the number of EI regular claims and amount paid among workers aged 55 years and older and the increase in their share of the Canadian labour force. Older workers accounted for 20.6% of the labour force in FY1617, an increase of 2.9 percentage points from 17.7% in FY1112.^{Footnote 23}

Employment Insurance regular claims and amount paid by industry

The number of new EI regular claims declined in all industries in FY1617 (see Table 8), most notably Mining and oil and gas extraction (-36.1%), Construction (-13.6%), Transportation and warehousing ( 12.5%) and Manufacturing ( 12.3%). The decreases in the number of EI regular claims from claimants from these industries were consistent with the recent downward trend in unemployment in those industries. Furthermore, consistent with the previous year, most of new claims were made by claimants employed, before the establishment of their claim, in Construction (20.7%), Educational services (11.6%), and Manufacturing (9.9%). Combined, these three industries accounted for 42.2% of all EI regular claims, a decrease of 1.3 percentage points compared with the previous year (43.5%).

As for goods-producing industries, the number of new EI regular claims decreased by 14.3% to about 484,700 in the reporting period, a drop driven primarily by the decline in the number of claims established by unemployed claimants from Mining and oil and gas extraction (-36.1%) , Construction (-13.6%), and Manufacturing (-12.3%).

Claims from these three industries accounted for 88.5% of all EI regular claims from goods-producing industries in FY1617, a decrease of 0.6 percentage points from the previous year.

The amount of EI regular benefits paid to claimants who worked in goods-producing industries increased by 1.1% to $5.4 billion, much lower than the increase observed in FY1516 (+21.9%). This slower growth was mainly attributable to a decrease in amounts paid to claimants from Manufacturing (-0.6%) and lower increases observed in amounts paid for claims established by claimants who worked in Mining and oil and gas extraction (+0.8%) and Construction (+2.3%) over the previous year. Claimants from these three industries accounted for 89.7% of goods-producing industries’ total amount paid for EI regular benefits.

As for the services-producing industries, the number of EI regular claims established decreased by 7.2% to about 762,600 claims in FY1617, largely due to the number of claims established by claimants from Transportation and warehousing (-12.5%), Professional, scientific and technical services (-12.1%), and Business, building and other support services (-11.5%). In contrast to the number of claims established, the total amount paid to claimants from services-producing industries increased by +3.1% to $6.7 billion, much lower than the increase observed in FY1516 (14.7%). This slower pace of growth is mainly attributable to the lower rate of the growth in amounts paid to claimants from Transportation and warehousing, Professional, scientific and technical services, and Business, building and other support services.

The decreased use of EI regular benefits by both goods- and services-producing industries occurred even as employment trends diverged in the two sectors: goods-producing industries observed an employment loss of 1.2% in FY1617, while the services industry showed employment gains of 1.6% (see Chart 8).

Text description of Chart 8

	Annual Percentage Change
	Regular Claims	Amount Paid	Employment
Goods-producing industries	-14.3%	1.1%	-1.2%
Services-producing industries	-7.2%	-7.2%	1.6%

Note: Includes claims for which at least $1 of EI regular benefits was paid.

Sources:Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), Employment Insurance administrative data (for data on regular claims and amount paid) and Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, CANSIM table 282-007 (for data on employment). ESDC data are based on 10% sample of EI administrative data.

A recent departmental study^{Footnote 24} on re-employment patterns after a layoff, comparing workers based on their EI claim status, examined whether laid-off workers returned to the same industry or transitioned to a new one when re-employed. It also examined the impact of the re-employment on the workers’ wages. The study found that the majority of re-employed laid-off workers found a job in the same industry regardless of whether or not they claimed EI benefits and that the share of laid-off workers that changed industry upon re-employment increased with the duration of the unemployment spell. The study also looked at the impact of returning to or changing industry on laid-off workers' wages by examining those that received a higher, lower or similar wage after re-employment. When returning to the same industry, the majority of re-employed workers maintained a similar or higher wage regardless of their EI claim status.

A key consideration associated with the EI program is that it can increase the quality of the new job found by EI claimant, notably in terms of wages and employment duration, as more time and resources are provided to an individual to search for suitable employment. Some evidence suggests that, in general, unemployment programs have either a very small positive impact or no impact at all on the job quality for re-employed individuals. Some specific sub-programs associated with the EI program may, however, provide more successful outcomes. A recent analysis by Employment and Social Development Canada^{Footnote 25} shows that a number of active labour market policies—components of the EI program associated with Employment Benefit and Support Measures, see Chapter III for more information—generally had positive and highly significant impacts on re-employment and employment earnings of individuals.

Employment Insurance regular benefits and firms

According to 2015 tax data^{Footnote 26} there were 1.2 million firms^{Footnote 27} operating in Canada, an increase of 1.3% compared to 2014. There were about 303,800 firms associated with the establishment of an EI regular benefit claim as a claimant’s former employer in 2015 (or 25.4% of all firms).

The proportion of firms with at least one employee receiving EI regular benefits varied widely according to firm size, with smaller firms being less likely to be the last employer of a claimant.^{Footnote 28} In 2015, 20.0% of small-sized firms (1 to 19 employees) had at least one former employee who received EI regular benefits. In comparison, 74.8% of small-to-medium (20 to 99 employees) firms, 95.0% of medium-to-large (100 to 499 employees) and 99.6% of large-sized (500 employees or more) firms had a former employee who received EI regular benefits.

However, compared to the distribution of the workforce, employees from smaller firms tended to be over-represented among EI regular claimants (see Table 9). Workers in large-sized firms were underrepresented among EI regular claimants, accounting for 43.1% of workers and only 32.0% of EI regular claimants. All other categories of firms were over-represented among EI regular claimants—small firms, for example, represented 21.6% of workers and 26.1% of EI regular claimants. This higher use of EI regular benefits could suggest that, in difficult business or economic conditions, smaller firms may 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, generally more likely to rely on EI, in small firms relative to the national average in some industries.^{Footnote 29}

Employment Insurance (EI) regular claims and amount paid by EI claimant category

As shown in Table 10, the number of claims established declined in all claimant categories in FY1617. Long-tenured workers reported the largest decrease, down 13.4% over the previous year, followed by frequent (-7.2%) and occasional claimants (-4.9%). Occasional workers continued to account for the largest share (53.5%) of all new EI regular claims established, an increase of 1.6 percentage points compared to the previous year (51.9%). In contrast, the share of long-tenured workers declined moderately by 1.7 percentage points to 24.9%, while that of frequent claimants was barely changed at 21.6%.

The decrease in claims established by long-tenured workers in FY1617 continues the downward trend observed since the recession in FY0910. The number of EI regular claims established by long-tenured workers in FY1617 (approximately 329,300) remained below the peak reported in FY0809 (519,800) (see Chart 9).

As in the previous year, occasional claimants accounted for the largest share of total benefit payments (49.1%) in FY1617, a decrease of 1.4 percentage points over the previous year. They were followed by long-tenured workers and frequent workers who accounted for 29.1% and 21.9%, respectively, of total benefit payments. Long-tenured workers (+17.2%) and occasional workers (+1.7%) witnessed increases in their EI regular benefit payments, while frequent claimants witnessed a decrease (-3.3%) (see Table 10 and Chart 10).

Furthermore, as Table 10 illustrates, the distribution of the total amount paid to these different claimant categories was not in alignment with the distribution of claims they established. In fact, long-tenured workers received a larger share of the total amount paid (29.1%) relative to their share of claims (24.9%) in FY1617. Occasional claimants, who made up 53.5% of total claims, accounted for 49.1% of the total amount paid.

Text description of Chart 9

	2008/2009	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Long-tenured workers	31.6%	30.0%	24.0%	25.6%	23.3%	21.5%	19.5%	26.6%	24.9%
Occasional claimants	50.6%	51.4%	53.9%	51.8%	53.1%	55.1%	57.8%	51.9%	53.5%
Frequent claimants	17.8%	18.6%	22.1%	22.6%	23.6%	23.4%	22.7%	21.5%	21.6%

Note: Includes claims for which at least $1 of regular benefits was paid.

^* See Annex 2.1 for definitions of claimant categories 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 10

Amount paid ($ billions)
	2008/2009	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Long-tenured workers	$3.0	$5.1	$4.4	$3.2	$2.7	$2.4	$2.1	$3.1	$3.7
Occasional claimants	$4.8	$6.9	$5.7	$5.2	$5.0	$5.3	$5.7	$6.1	$6.2
Frequent claimants	$2.2	$2.7	$2.7	$2.8	$2.8	$2.7	$2.7	$2.9	$2.8

Note: Includes claims for which at least $1 of EI regular benefits was paid.

^* See Annex 2.1 for definitions of claimant categories referenced in this chart.

Source: Employment and Social Developement 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 by unemployment rate in the Employment Insurance economic region of establishment

The unemployment rate in an EI economic region determines the number of hours of insurable employment needed to qualify for EI, 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). More information on eligibility and access to EI regular benefits is available in Section 2.2 (Employment Insurance regular benefits: coverage, eligibility and access).

Consistent with previous years, claimants who accumulated more than 1,820 insurable hours accounted for the highest share of new EI regular claims (25.7%), a decrease of 2.0 percentage points from the previous year. This is the first decline in the share of claimants in this category after five years of consecutive increases. Despite this decline, the shares of EI regular claims based on the number of insurable hours accumulated by claimants was relatively stable across categories. Claims with fewer than 700 insurable hours registered the largest increase (+13.7%), while those with 1,820 hours or more witnessed the greatest decrease (-14.3%) (see Table 11).

Chart 11 depicts the average number of hours of insurable employment per claim receiving EI regular benefits. In FY1617, on average, claimants who qualified for EI regular benefits accumulated 1,363 hours of insurable employment during their qualifying period, a decrease of 2.2% over the previous year. It was the first decrease after five years of consecutive increases since FY1011.

Text description of Chart 11

	2008/2009	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Men	1,446	1,385	1,358	1,377	1,393	1,400	1,406	1,418	1,385
Women	1,357	1,325	1,309	1,315	1,328	1,338	1,342	1,353	1,328
Canada	1,413	1,362	1,338	1,352	1,367	1,376	1,381	1,393	1,363

Furthermore, the average number of hours of insurable employment per claim that qualified for EI regular benefits varied by province and territory, gender and age. Indeed, the number of hours per claim in the Atlantic provinces and the Territories tends to be lower than in other jurisdictions. For instance, claims from Newfoundland and Labrador showed the lowest average number of hours of insurable employment per claim (1,135 hours), followed by Nunavut (1,186 hours). Claims established in Alberta had the highest average number of hours with 1,501.

By gender, results showed that claims made by men (1,385 hours) had, on average, 57 more hours of insurable employment than claims made up by women (1,328 hours) compared to 62 hours in the previous year, a decrease of 8.1%. This decrease in FY1617 marks the first decline in gender gap for the last five years (see Chart 11). Further, results by age show that claimants aged 55 years and over accumulated the lowest number of hours of insurable employment on average in FY1617 (1,298 hours), while those between 25 and 44 years of age had the highest average (1,398).

Table 12 shows that there were decreases in the number of new claims by regional unemployment rates, except claims established in EI economic regions with unemployment rates between 7.1% to 8.0%, 11.1% to 12.0%, and 14.1% to 15.0%. The largest decrease (-32.9%) occurred in EI economic regions with unemployment rates of 13.1% to 14.0%, while those with unemployment rates of 14.1% to 15.0% reported the greatest increase (+61.2%). In addition, claimants from EI regions with an unemployment rate between 6.1% and 7.0% accounted for the largest share of EI new claims with 27.5%, an increase of 2.1 percentage points over the previous year. As a point of reference, the table also presents the labour force by regional unemployment rate for FY1617.

Coverage of Employment Insurance regular benefits

As mentioned previously, recipients of EI regular benefits have to make EI premium contributions in the 52 weeks prior to submitting a claim. While the actual receipt of EI benefits is subject to further eligibility requirements, the number of unemployed persons who contributed to the EI program by paying premiums in the previous 52 weeks is an important factor in determining the program’s overall coverage of the unemployed population.

Chart 13 illustrates the share of EI contributors of the total unemployed in Canada from 2008 to 2016. The share of unemployed contributors remained the same in 2016 (65.3%) as the previous year, reversing the downward trend that has been observed since 2009. Higher EI coverage rates of the unemployed tend to occur during economic downturns, as slowing economic activity leads to layoffs that increase the share of unemployed contributors among all unemployed. For example, at the beginning of the recession, in FY0809, the share of unemployed contributors reached a peak (70.1% in 2008 and 70.3% in 2009). Likewise, the downturn in commodity prices slowed down economic growth in 2015 and in 2016, which explains the higher share of unemployed contributors in those years.

Text description of Chart 13

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Employment Insurance contributors (% share)	70.1%	70.3%	64.7%	64.5%	61.7%	62.5%	61.0%	65.3%	65.3%

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2008 to 2016.

Chart 14 provides an illustration of the trend in the share of EI non-contributors in Canada from 2008 to 2016. It is noticeable that the share of total non-contributors to the EI program and those who have no recent insurable employment remained unchanged in 2016 from the previous year. The share of unemployed who had been without work in the past 12 months increased from 21.4% in 2015 to 22.5% in 2016 (+1.1 percentage points). Persons who stated that they had never worked declined for the second consecutive year to represent 8.2% of the total unemployed population. As shown in Chart 14, those who had not worked in the previous 12 months and those who had never worked account for a greater share of the total unemployed over the years.

Text description of Chart 14

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total EI non-contributors	29.9%	29.7%	35.3%	35.5%	38.3%	37.5%	39.0%	34.7%	34.7%
Have no recent insurable employment (e.g. self-employed and unpaid family workers)	4.4%	4.9%	3.0%	3.4%	4.4%	4.5%	4.4%	4.0%	4.0%
Have not worked in the previous 12 months (excluding those who have never worked)	18.3%	18.3%	24.1%	25.0%	24.6%	24.3%	23.3%	21.4%	22.5%
Have never worked	7.2%	6.5%	8.3%	7.1%	9.3%	8.8%	11.4%	9.3%	8.2%

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2008 to 2016.

Table 14 shows the EI coverage rates by region, gender, age, and work pattern. In 2016, Ontario reported the lowest share of unemployed persons who paid EI contributions (57.7%), while the Atlantic provinces reported the highest (80.7%). On the basis of gender, a larger share of unemployed men (70.9%) contributed EI premiums than unemployed women (56.8%). By age categories, older unemployed workers aged 45 years and over had the highest share of EI contributors (71.2%), compared to younger workers 24 years of age and under (56.3%) and those who were aged between 25 to 44 years (65.5%). The EI coverage rate among unemployed non-permanent workers (78.8%) was higher than that among the permanent workers (72.0%).

Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits

As noted above, in order to be eligible to receive EI regular benefits, Canada’s unemployed have to meet three core eligibility requirements (that is, paid EI premiums within the previous 52 weeks, a valid job separation, and worked a minimum number of insurable hours within their qualifying period---defined as either the previous 52 weeks or since establishing their last claim, whichever is shorter—based on the regional unemployment rate).

The 2016 EICS estimates that the number of unemployed persons potentially eligible to receive EI benefits (that is, who had paid EI premiums within the preceding 12 months and had a valid job separation) reached 694,800 (53.4% of total unemployed) in 2016, compared to 687,700 persons (52.9% of total unemployed) in 2015. This represents the majority of the EI contributor population and excludes those with reasons for job separations that did not meet the EI program’s eligibility criteria. The share of unemployed individuals who were potentially eligible for EI benefits continued to rise for the second consecutive year in 2016 due to the continued increase (+7,100) in the number of unemployed who reported having worked in insurable employment and had a valid job separation and relatively smaller increase (+2,900) in total unemployed population.

Chart 15 illustrates the EI eligibility rate—the share of potentially eligible unemployed population with enough insurable hours to qualify for EI benefits--over the last decade. After falling for two previous consecutive years, the EI eligibility rate increased from 82.8% in 2015 to 85.4% in 2016 (+2.6 percentage points). This increase could be partly attributable to the elimination of the NERE requirement that came into effect on July 3, 2016. A total of 593,500 individuals were considered eligible (that is, had enough insurable hours of employment) out of 694,800 EI contributors with a valid job separation. The EI eligibility rate tends to fluctuate modestly with changes in the labour market responding to wider business cycle fluctuations.

Text description of Chart 15

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Canada	82.3%	82.1%	86.2%	83.9%	78.4%	81.9%	85.8%	83.1%	82.8%	85.4%

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2007 to 2016.

One important consideration regarding the eligibility for EI regular benefits is that claimants accumulate varying hours of insurable employment. As indicated by EI administrative data, the eligible claimants who successfully establish a claim generally accumulate hours of insurable employment well beyond the minimum requirement under the Variable Entrance Requirement (VER) provision. In FY1617, the share of regular claimants who had qualified with insurable hours near the minimum entrance requirement, defined as being within 70 hours of the VER, increased to 4.0% from 3.1% in the previous fiscal year (see Chart 16).

Text description of Chart 16

	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Level of EI regular claims (left scale)	42,440	40,200	40,820	44,270	52,840
Claims as a share of all EI regular claims (right scale)	3.1%	3.0%	3.0%	3.1%	4.0%

Note: Includes claims for which at least $1 of 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.

The number of eligible regular claimants who qualify near the minimum entrance requirement ranged from a low of 40,200 claimants in FY1314 to a high of 52,800 in the reporting fiscal year. In general, claimants qualifying within 70 hours of their VER are disproportionately found in EI economic regions with higher unemployment rates (12.1% or greater), which could be partly attributable to the importance of seasonal employment in those EI economic regions and the discrete period available to accumulate sufficient insurable hours for workers in those industries.

A recent departmental study—based on Record of Employment (ROE)^{Footnote 32} data--looked into the share of laid-off unemployed persons with enough insurable hours to meet the VER from 2001 to 2016.^{Footnote 33} The study found that those who reported recent laid-off job separations (the reason for separation was shortage of work) with enough combined hours to meet the VER in their 52-week qualification period declined over time, from 75.4% in 2001 to 70.1% in 2016. This may not fully reflect potential eligibility where previous employment did not result in a ROE being generated. Another departmental study examining the extent to which employers issue a ROE when there is an interruption of earnings found that 30.2% of earnings interruptions in 2014 were not associated with a ROE.^{Footnote 34}

Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits by province

Because the eligibility rates are sensitive to economic conditions and the prevalence of specific employment patterns during the qualifying period (such as, the incidence of full-time versus part-time hours, permanent versus temporary employment etc.), demographic and regional labour force characteristics show significant variation in eligibility outcomes. Table 15 outlines the EI eligibility rates by province over the last five years. In 2016, the lowest eligibility rate was observed in Manitoba (75.3%) and the highest was in Prince Edward Island (98.5%). Compared to the 2015 EICS statistics, the EI eligibility increased in six out of ten provinces while decreased in the rest. The largest increases were observed in British Columbia (+12.1 percentage points) and Nova Scotia (+11.1 percentage points), while the largest decrease was observed in Saskatchewan (-11.0 percentage points) followed by Manitoba (-7.6 percentage points).

Over time, it can be seen that the Atlantic provinces have the highest EI eligibility rates, while Ontario and the Western provinces have comparatively lower eligibility rates. Between 2012 and 2016, the greatest variability in eligibility rates is found in Alberta (18.5 percentage points) and Manitoba (16.1 percentage points) and the least variability is found in Newfoundland (2.3 percentage points).

Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits by gender and age

Table 16 outlines the EI eligibility rates by gender and age in 2015 and 2016. Historically, a higher proportion of men hold full-time and/or permanent jobs in Canada and a higher proportion of women work in part-time and/or temporary jobs. This difference in employment characteristics among men and women is reflected in the eligibility rates for the two genders. In 2016, the EI eligibility rate of men increased by 5.2 percentage points from the previous year to 87.2%, whereas the eligibility rate of women decreased by 2.7 percentage points from the previous year to 81.6%.

By age groups, unemployed workers aged 45 and older had the highest eligibility rate at 94.0% in 2016, increasing 3.4 percentage points from the previous year (90.7%). However, the largest increase in eligibility was among those who were 25 to 44 years old—the eligibility rate for them increased by 6.3 percentage points, from 82.1% in 2015 to 88.4% in 2016. Younger workers who are aged between 15 and 24 tend to have lower labour force attachment, and are more likely to quit their jobs to go back to school. This is reflected in their lower eligibility rate; in 2016, the youth eligibility rate declined by 3.2 percentage points to reach 50.8% from the previous year (54.0%).

Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits by type of employment

Under the EI program’s eligibility requirements, previous employment characteristics significantly influence the EI eligibility rate (that is, having worked for a minimum number of insurable hours in the previous 52 weeks or since the start of last claim, whichever is shorter). Intuitively, unemployed workers who previously held full-time positions have a higher eligibility rate because they are more likely to have worked enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI regular benefits than part-time workers. Similarly, those who had permanent jobs are also more likely to report a higher eligibility rate than those who were classified as having temporary employment.

Chart 17 illustrates the EI eligibility rates by previous employment characteristics from 2009 to 2016. It can be seen that the eligibility rate for both permanent and temporary workers increased in 2016 from the previous year. In 2016, the eligibility rate for permanent workers was 92.8%, compared to 75.7% for temporary workers and 85.4% for all workers. The gap in eligibility rates between permanent workers and temporary workers decreased to 17.1 percentage points in 2016, down from 17.9 percentage points in the previous year. In the previous seven years, this gap was the lowest in 2014 (9.9 percentage points) and the highest in 2010 (20.0 percentage points).

Text description of Chart 17

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
All Workers	86.2%	83.9%	78.4%	81.9%	85.8%	83.1%	82.8%	85.4%
Permanent workers	92.2%	92.4%	87.2%	89.9%	91.4%	87.7%	90.0%	92.8%
Temporary workers	75.3%	72.3%	68.3%	72.2%	79.0%	77.7%	72.2%	75.7%

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2009 to 2016.

As shown in Chart 18, the eligibility rate of permanent full-time workers was 95.3% in 2016—the highest observed in the last ten years. The eligibility rate for temporary seasonal workers is not far below than that of full-time permanent employees, and the gap between the eligibility rates of these two groups reduced in 2016 compared to the previous year. Temporary seasonal workers have an eligibility rate consistently above part-time permanent employees and temporary non-seasonal workers. The eligibility rates of temporary non-seasonal workers (66.4% in 2016) and permanent part-time workers (62.4% in 2016) have relatively the same trend and experienced fluctuations over the past seven years.

Text description of Chart 18

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Permanent full-time workers	94.3%	94.5%	91.2%	94.6%	95.0%	90.1%	93.3%	95.3%
Permanent part-time workers	68.8%	74.4%	54.9%	65.2%	71.4%	66.2%	65.8%	62.4%
Temporary seasonal workers	81.4%	83.6%	81.2%	75.6%	85.1%	84.6%	82.6%	87.5%
Temporary non-seasonal workers	70.5%	64.7%	60.0%	69.8%	74.5%	73.0%	64.0%	66.4%

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2009 to 2016

Access to Employment Insurance regular benefits

Access to EI regular benefits is another way to consider of how well the EI program is working to meet the needs of the labour market in providing EI regular benefits to help the unemployed transition to new employment.^{Footnote 35} For the purpose of the EI Monitoring and Assessment Report, access to EI regular benefits is measured as the share of unemployed population receiving EI regular benefits. The two main ratios used to measure accessibility are the Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) ratio and the Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) ratio. Chart 19 shows the comparison of these two ratios for 2015 and 2016.

Both the B/U ratio and the B/UC ratio increased in 2016 compared to 2015. This is because the increase in the number of beneficiaries (+27,300) from 2015 to 2016 was much higher than the increase in the number of unemployed (+2,900) and the number of unemployed contributors (+2,000) during the same time period.

Text description of Chart 19

	2015	2016
Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) Ratio	39.8%	41.8%
Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) Ratio	61.0%	64.0%

Sources: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (for data on unemployed (U), and unemployed contributors (UC)); and Statistics Canada, monthly Employment Insurance statistics release, CANSIM table 276-0020 (for data on regular beneficiaries (B)).

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

The access measure with the broadest population base is the Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) ratio where the average number of individuals who received EI regular benefits in the reference week of the EICS is expressed as a share of the corresponding unemployed population.^{Footnote 36} As such, it includes a significant segment of the population who are considered ineligible for EI regular benefits (such as the number of unemployed who have not worked in the previous year or never worked, who did not have a valid job separation, or who were self-employed) and is sensitive to changes in the composition of the unemployed population and the proportion of the unemployed people outside the scope of the EI program coverage.

Chart 20 illustrates the B/U ratio for Canada from 2012 to 2016. Because the total unemployed population is considered within the B/U ratio, its movement is more likely to reflect labour market conditions and EI eligibility fluctuations that are not necessarily associated with EI policies. This makes this ratio less suited to measuring access to EI regular benefits.

Text description of Chart 20

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Beneficiary-to-Unemployed (B/U) ratio (%)	40.6%	38.4%	38.6%	39.8%	41.8%

Note: The B/U Ratio is calculated as follows: (number of EI regular beneficiaries ÷ number of unemployed).

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (for data on the unemployed (U)); and Statistics Canada, monthly Employment Insurance statistics release, CANSIM table 276-0020 (for data on regular beneficiaries (B)).

The Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) ratio

Another access measure, known as the Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) ratio, is the number of EI regular beneficiaries as a share of the unemployed who contributed EI premiums in the previous 12 months. This ratio considers a narrower target population than the B/U ratio. Because the B/UC ratio measures accessibility among unemployed workers for whom the EI regular benefits are designed to provide coverage, and excludes those unemployed who did not contribute EI premiums during their last employment period, this ratio may provide a better assessment of accessibility to EI regular benefits of the EI program.

Chart 21 illustrates the B/UC ratios for Canada from 2012 to 2016. The B/UC ratio increased from 61.0% in 2015 to 64.0% in 2016 (+3.0 percentage points). This increase is attributable to the growth in the number of beneficiaries of EI regular benefits (+5.3%) outpacing the growth in the number of unemployed contributors (+0.2%).

Text description of Chart 21

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Beneficiary-to-Unemployed Contributor (B/UC) ratio (%)	65.8%	61.5%	63.4%	61.0%	64.0%

Note: The B/UC ratio is calculated as follows: (number of EI regular beneficiaries ÷ number of unemployed who contributed to the EI program).

Source: Statistics Canada, Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (for data on the unemployed contributors (UC)); and Statistics Canada, monthly Employment Isurance statistics release, CANSIM table 276-0020 (for data on regular beneficiaries (B)).

Employment Insurance claimants eligible for the additional weeks of Employment Insurance regular benefits

For the purpose of this section, which aims to analyze the impacts of the temporary measure for regions impacted by the downturn in commodity prices, different populations of EI claimants are considered. As this temporary help measure targeted claims that were established as early as January 4, 2015 and because it came into force on July 3, 2016, some claims had already been terminated^{Footnote 41} by the time the measure was implemented. If, as of July 3, 2016, a claimant eligible for the temporary support measure was associated with such a terminated claim and was still unemployed, he would then qualify for some additional weeks of EI regular benefits. Claims associated with these individuals are referred to as “reach-back claims”.

In addition to reach-back claims, there are claims for EI regular benefits that were established after January 4, 2015, and that were still open by the time the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No.1, came into force.^{Footnote 42} These claims are referred to as active EI claims.

Finally, claims for EI regular benefits that were established between July 3, 2016, and July 8, 2017, and thus on or after the temporary measure implementation date, are referred to as new claims.

Distinguishing reach-back claims from active and new claims is important because the benefit period extension did not have the same repercussion for all of them. For instance, active and new claims had their benefit period extended before their original benefit period of 52 weeks terminated. Hence, claimants associated with these claims could receive, during their benefit period extension, any weeks of EI regular or special benefits they were entitled to receive in their original 52 weeks benefit period and that they did not claim during that period. Conversely, reach-back claims were terminated when claimants were provided with a new benefit period to receive their additional benefits. As a result, they were not allowed to claim, during their benefit period extension, any regular weeks of EI benefits from their original entitlement that were not claimed during their former benefit period of 52 weeks.

Claims for Employment Insurance regular benefits in regions affected by the downturn in commodity prices^{Footnote 43}

Among all claims that received additional weeks of EI regular benefits during the reporting period, a greater share were established by men (62.8%) and claimants aged between 25 and 44 years old (41.5%)—see Table 19. Claims established in Alberta also accounted for a more important share of claims that received additional weeks of benefits (48.1%). The share of eligible claims with additional benefits is lower for claims established in the reporting fiscal year (25.6%) when compared with the share for eligible claims established since January 4, 2015 (36.7%). This is notably because many claims established towards the end of the reporting period are not yet terminated at the time of reporting. Even though those claims have not used any additional weeks of benefits at the time of reporting, they still could claim some before ending.

While some eligible claimants did not use any additional weeks from the temporary help measure, they nevertheless benefited from the benefit period extension. These claimants either claimed weeks of EI regular benefits from their original entitlement or weeks of special benefits during the benefit period extension. Among all eligible claims established before or during FY1617, there are close to 85,100 that met those criteria (see Table 20). Furthermore, approximately 43,000 claims were associated, during their benefit period extension, with both additional weeks of EI benefits and, either or both, previously unclaimed weeks of regular benefits during their original benefit period or weeks of special benefit claimed during the benefits period extension.

Claim duration, exhaustion rate and benefits paid in regions affected by the downturn in commodity prices

Of the 339,200 claims that benefited from the temporary extension of EI regular benefits, 198,200 were completed^{Footnote 44} during the reporting fiscal year. The average duration of those claims was 36.9 weeks (28.4 weeks if we exclude weeks associated with the temporary support measure)—see Table 21.

The additional weeks of benefits helped reduce the exhaustion rate (both entitlement and benefit period exhaustion combined) of eligible claims completed in FY1617. The rate declined from 53.2% (before they were provided with additional weeks of EI benefits) to 43.0%. This suggests that while many unemployed individuals needed additional weeks of EI benefits to help them find work, several were able to secure a new job before either using all their additional entitlement or reaching the end of their extended benefit period.

Claims for EI regular benefits that benefited from the temporary extension of EI regular benefits and that were completed during the reporting fiscal year had an average weekly benefit rate of $461. This compares with $489 for regular claims completed in the 15 EI economic regions targeted by the temporary support measure and that did not benefit from the temporary support measure. Regular claims completed in FY1617 that received at least one week of additional benefits and/or at least one week of EI benefits during the benefit period extension were paid an average of $16,263 over their entire duration. Excluding all weeks of benefits due to the temporary help measure, which extended EI regular benefits, the average EI benefits paid to those claimants would have been $12,480. In comparison, claims for EI regular benefits which were completed in those EI economic regions during the reporting fiscal year and that did not benefit from the temporary measure received an average of $7,701

Amount paid to claimants benefiting from the extension of Employment Insurance regular benefits for workers in regions affected by the downturn in commodity prices

During the reporting fiscal year, $998.4 million were paid to EI claimants under the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No.1. Of that amount, $301.5 million were paid to reach-back claims. The majority (67.6% or $675.0 million) of the benefits paid were associated with additional weeks of regular benefits provided under the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No.1. The remaining benefits (32.4% or $323.4 millions) stemmed from weeks of EI regular benefit claimants had qualified for prior to the implementation of the temporary help measure or special benefits that were paid during the benefit period extension.

Maximum and actual duration of Employment Insurance regular benefits

Under most circumstances, the maximum entitlement of EI regular benefits available to an EI claimant is between 14 and 45 weeks, depending on the local unemployment rate and the claimant’s accumulated number of hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period^{Footnote 46}. 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. To do so, the country is divided into 62 economic regions. In general, when a region’s unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirement is reduced and the maximum duration of benefits increases. Therefore, the amount of assistance provided adjusts to the changing needs of regions and communities.

The actual duration of a claim is the number of weeks of EI regular benefits an EI claimant receives during a claim^{Footnote 47}. Actual duration is usually lower than maximum duration, 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, switched to special benefits, became unavailable to work).

Compared with the previous fiscal year, the maximum duration of claims completed during the reporting fiscal year went up by 1.6 weeks to 33.7 weeks. The average actual duration also increased, up 1.2 weeks, to 20.5 weeks (see Chart 23). Those increases contrast with the general declining trend observed during the previous years.

Text description of Chart 23

	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Unemployment rate (right scale)	8.5%	7.9%	7.4%	7.2%	7.0%	6.9%	7.0%	6.9%
Average actual duration in weeks (left scale)	21.9	24.0	21.6	20.1	19.7	19.4	19.3	20.5
Average maximum duration in weeks (left scale)	38.8	41.7	35.4	33.0	32.1	31.6	32.1	33.7

Note: Includes all claims completed during the fiscal year for which at least $1 of regular benefit was paid.

^*Coincides with the Employment Insurance temporary measures that increased the maximum number of weeks for which regular benefits could be paid.
^rRevised data.
^pPreliminary data.

Sources: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance administrative (EI) data (for data on duration of regular benefits); and Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, CANSIM table 282-0007 (for data on unemployment rates). ESDC data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

A number of factors during the reporting period likely affected benefit duration. Higher unemployment rates in several provinces and territories, at the time the claims were established,^{Footnote 48} led to increases in maximum and average durations. In addition, the temporary support measure implemented through the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No.1 also contributed to the increase in duration (both actual and maximum). This measure increased, by at least five weeks, the maximum duration of EI regular benefits for eligible claimants in 15 EI economic regions impacted by the downturn in commodity prices.^{Footnote 49},^{Footnote 50} As discussed in subsection 2.2.4, it also increased the actual duration of EI regular benefits in the regions targeted by the measure.

In general, the average maximum duration of claims for EI regular benefits completed during the reporting fiscal year varied significantly across provinces and territories. These divergences are attributable to differences in labour markets and labour force characteristics. Alberta (44.9 weeks) and Nunavut (44.1 weeks), which both include some of the regions impacted by the downturn in commodity prices and benefited from additional weeks of EI regular benefits implemented as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No.1, posted the highest average maximum duration. Conversely, Quebec and Ontario had the lowest averages at 30.1 weeks and 31.1 weeks respectively (see Table 22).

Long-tenured workers are generally more likely to accumulate insurable hours of employment well above the minimum requirements for EI regular benefits. As such, they tend to benefit from longer entitlements (40.4 weeks during the reporting fiscal year) relative to frequent claimants (30.2 weeks) who averaged shorter employment spells.

With regards to the average actual duration of EI regular benefits, changes were generally in line with those observed for maximum duration. Provincial and territorial trends, notably affected by the changes in their local labour market conditions, showed greater variability. As such, Alberta (+7.0 weeks) and Saskatchewan (+6.2 weeks) recorded the largest increases in the average actual duration in FY1617.

During the same period, EI regular claims from the Mining, oil and gas extraction sector had, on average, the greatest maximum duration (44.3 weeks), followed by those from Management of companies and enterprises (37.6 weeks). The higher maximum duration levels in these industries, relative to the national average (33.7 weeks), are partly attributed to a large proportion of claimants qualifying as long-tenured workers.

In terms of actual duration, completed claims for EI regular benefits by workers from the Mining, oil and gas extraction sector (24.3 weeks) and Finance and insurance (24.2 weeks) had the highest average durations during the reporting fiscal year (see Annex 2.6.2). As in past years, the Educational services industry (12.3 weeks) posted an actual average duration significantly lower than overall average. This is 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

As for duration of EI regular benefits, a few factors may influence the proportion of the entitlement used by claimants. For instance, greater maximum durations are generally associated with lower proportions of regular benefits’ weeks used.

For claims completed in FY1617, the average proportion of weeks of regular benefits used—the average number of weeks of EI regular benefits received by claimants as a share of their maximum entitlement—went up by 0.4 percentage points from the previous fiscal year, to 63.5%.

Indeed, the proportion of weeks of regular benefits used by claims completed in the reporting fiscal year reached its highest level in years in Newfoundland and Labrador (76.0%), Saskatchewan (62.2%) and Yukon (69.9%). It also increased by 5.9 percentage points in Alberta (58.3%), four of the regions the most affected by the downturn in commodity prices (see Table 23).

The temporary measure providing additional weeks of EI regular benefits also led to a noticeable growth in the number of completed claims for EI regular benefits for which claimants could claim the maximum entitlement—45 weeks or more. During the reporting period, this number increased by 70.6% to 190,900—see Table 24. The proportion of EI regular benefit weeks used increased the most for claims associated with the highest entitlements (+6.7 percentage points).

By gender, women and men used the same proportion of their regular benefit weeks in FY1617 (63.5%). Historically, men used to receive slightly fewer weeks of regular benefits relative to their entitlement when compared to women. However, it is the third consecutive year that men either use about the same or a greater share of their entitlement relative to women.

By age group, claimants aged 55 years and older used a greater proportion of their regular benefit weeks (71.4% in the reporting fiscal year) than younger claimants (59.7%). This is notably attributable to, on average, longer periods of both unemployment and of actual benefits duration for older claimants relative to younger claimants.

Also, claimants working while on claim may have a stronger labour market attachment and may also defer weeks of EI benefits. As a result, on average, claimants working while on claim use a lower proportion of their weeks of EI benefits (60.9% during the reporting fiscal year) when compared to claimants who did not work while on claim (66.1%).

Regions with high unemployment rates are also often characterized by weaker labour market conditions. This is partly attributable to the greater importance of seasonal employment in these regions. There is thus a larger share of frequent EI claimants in regions with high unemployment rates relative to EI regions with lower unemployment rates. As frequent claimants tend to use a greater proportion of their entitlement, the proportion of regular benefit entitlement used is the highest for EI claims established in regions with unemployment rates above 13.0%.

Entitlement exhaustion of Employment Insurance regular benefits

Of all regular claims completed during the reporting fiscal year, 34.5% (or 491,300) closed with exhausted entitlement. As depicted in Chart 24, the volume of regular claims with exhausted entitlement increased between FY1516 and FY1617. This increase follows a decline posted in FY1516. The decrease observed in FY1516 was notably attributable to the extension of EI regular benefits in the 15 EI economic regions hardest hit by the downturn in commodity prices. The measure provided additional weeks of EI benefits to many EI regular claimants in these regions and extended their benefit period. In doing so, it extended their claim into FY1617 whereas they would have otherwise exhausted in FY1516. This shift contributed to the increase in the exhaustion rate observed during the reporting period. It has been estimated that in the absence of the temporary measure, the exhaustion rates would have been 33.3% for FY1516 and 34.2% in FY1617.

Text description of Chart 24

	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Entitlement exhausted claims in thousands (left scale)	491.7r	417.8r	460.0r	455.2r	458.1r	456.0r	425.8r	491.3p
Entitlement exhaustion rate (right scale)	29.6%r	26.0%r	30.0%r	31.8%r	33.5%r	33.3%r	31.2%r	34.5%p

Note: Includes completed claims for which at least $1 of regular benefits was paid.

^rRevised data.
^pPreliminary data.

Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. Data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

The national entitlement exhaustion rate increased by 3.3 percentage points over the one recorded a year ago and reached its highest level in years. The exhaustion rate almost doubled in Saskatchewan (+18.6 percentage points—ppts) and in Alberta (+16.4 ppts)—see Table 25. It also posted significant increases in Newfoundland and Labrador (+16.8 ppts), Yukon (+12.9 ppts) and Nunavut (+12.8 ppts). Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador and Yukon presented the highest entitlement exhaustion rates during the reporting fiscal year (47.4%, 47.1% and 45.1% respectively).

By gender, claims established by women generally have a higher entitlement exhaustion rate (36.7% in FY1617) than those established by men (33.2%). This is due, in part, to fewer weeks of entitlement on average for women. Across age groups, claim exhaustion rates are fairly comparable. A notable exception is associated with claims established by claimants aged 55 years and over. These claimants tend to exhaust their entitlement more often which may be reflective of the challenges they face in securing new employment following a job loss.

Benefit period exhaustion vs entitlement exhaustion

In addition to entitlement exhaustion, claims may also end because their benefit period—the period during which an EI claimant may receive EI benefits^{Footnote 52}—closes before all potential regular benefit weeks’ of entitlement have been paid. Whenever this occurs, unless the claimant stopped filing EI biweekly reports,^{Footnote 53} the claim is considered to have exhausted its benefit period. These claims represented 17.5% of all completed regular claims in the reporting fiscal year.

The circumstances that result in benefit period exhaustion are generally different than those associated with entitlement exhaustion. Variables affecting the duration of an EI claim will influence benefit period exhaustion. These include the regular benefit entitlement, the 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 is associated with at least one week worked while on claim (70.7% in FY1617) compared with claims that ended because they exhausted their entitlement (37.4%)—see Table 26. Claims that exhaust the benefit period with Working While on Claim, have on average, a greater number of weeks worked while on claim (17.1 weeks during the reporting fiscal year) relative to claims that exhaust their entitlement (11.5 weeks). Claimants associated with benefit period exhaustion 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 associated with claims that exhausted the benefit period requalify for a new claim within four weeks following the termination of their claim (69.6% in FY1617 compared with 13.7% for claims that exhausted their entitlement).

The type of exhaustion is also reflective of the characteristics of beneficiaries’ claim. Indeed, a greater share of claims that have exhausted their benefit period had some sort of interaction with special benefits (17.9%) compared with claims that exhausted their entitlement (9.8%). Claims that exhausted the benefit period were also paid fewer weeks of EI regular benefits (19.7 weeks in the reporting period) relative to claims that exhausted their entitlement (29.1 weeks).

Entitlement exhaustion of Employment Insurance regular benefits: seasonal claimants and seasonal gappers

Historically, entitlement exhaustion rates are lower for seasonal claims (29.7%)^{Footnote 54} than for non-seasonal claims (36.5%)—see Table 26. This is attributable to the fact that many seasonal employees are only temporarily laid off and are likely to find work in the same industry and potentially with the same employer during the next season.^{Footnote 55} Also, when a layoff is outside of seasonal cyclicality, for reasons such as the deterioration of local labour market conditions, it can result in longer periods on EI and a more difficult job search.

Some claimants who used all their weeks of entitlement may go through a period without any income (from either employment or EI benefits). This can notably occur to seasonal claimants. It is indeed possible that these claimants—known as seasonal 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. Local labour markets and the seasonal nature of their work may also make finding work more difficult during their claim or from the end of the claim to the start of the season. Among all seasonal claims completed in the reporting fiscal year and which exhausted their entitlement close to 9,300 were characterised as a seasonal gapper. There are many other EI claimants experiencing an income gap between the exhaustion of their entitlements and their return to employment that are not included in the specific and relatively narrow definition of seasonal gappers used in this report.^{Footnote 56}

A 2016 evaluation^{Footnote 57} examining Pilot Project 15—which extended EI regular benefits in 21 EI economic regions with high unemployment rates during a period of economic recovery to reduce the number of seasonal workers facing an income gap—found that it reduced both the probability of becoming a seasonal gapper and the duration of the period without income for seasonal gappers. However, seasonal gappers represented a very small proportion (4.6%) of all claimants benefiting from the extended weeks of benefits.

Number of Employment Insurance regular claims and claimants Working While on Claim^{Footnote 64}

Of all claimants with an active claim^{Footnote 65} in FY1617, 817,000 (or 43.1%) worked at least one week while on claim during the reporting period (see Table 27). This proportion is lower relative to the one associated with completed claims in the reporting fiscal year with at least one week worked while on claim (49.7%). This divergence is attributable to differences in the two measures.

The proportion of regular claimants (or completed claims) with at least one week worked while on claim varies across regions and industries. This is likely a reflection of the claimants’ local labour market conditions. Greater shares of EI regular claimants WWC correlates with regions—Atlantic provinces (52.3% in FY1617) and Quebec (51.1%)—and with industries—Educational services (55.8%) and Construction (49.7%)—that have a higher proportion of seasonal claimants. This is possibly due to the greater re-employment opportunities should the benefit period of the claimants exceed the length of the “off-season”.

Weeks worked while on claim

This section analyzes the WWC provision from the perspective of weeks worked while on claim. It focuses on EI regular weeks. It examines whether or not 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 increased for the first time in five years to 23.2% during the reporting fiscal year (see Chart 25). The average number of weeks worked while on claim has been on a downward trend. It reached 11.2 weeks for claims completed in FY1617, down from the peak of 13.9 weeks five years earlier. Of those weeks worked while on claim, a little more than half (6.0 weeks on average) were deferred.

Text description of Chart 25

	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017
Share of all EI regular weeks worked while on claim (right scale)	24.8%	26.2%	27.4%	26.6%	25.0%	24.2%	22.9%	23.2%
Average number of weeks worked while on claim per claim (left scale)	12.9	12.8	13.9	11.9	11.6	11.3	11.5	11.2

Note: Includes all claims for which at least $1 of regular benefits was paid.

^rRevised data.
^pPreliminary data.
^*Coincides with the Employment Insurance (EI) temporary measures that increased the maximum number of weeks for which regular benefits could be paid.
^**Based on claims completed during the fiscal year.

Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. ESDC data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

The declines in the proportion of and the average number of weeks worked while on claim over the past years are partly attributable to changes in the WWC pilot projects and labour market conditions. The lower share of seasonal claimants among EI regular claimants (see subsection 2.2.8 Employment Insurance regular benefits and seasonal claimants) also contributed to the decreases. The higher proportion of EI regular claimants based in Western provinces, who have historically been less likely to work while on claim, also partly explains these declining trends.

An analysis by demographic characteristics shows that a greater proportion of seasonal claimants, women, claimants between 45 years old and 54 years old and those living in Atlantic Canada or Quebec generally were WWC (see Table 27). The proportion of weeks worked while on claim is also usually higher for these claimants. However, over time, the share of weeks worked while on claim has trended down in most regions and demographic groups (see Table 28).

Adjustments to WWC pilot projects over the years, combined with shifting economic conditions, have likely contributed to changing patterns in weeks worked while on claim. Under prior WWC provisions, EI benefits were not reduced below a certain threshold (25% of the claimant’s weekly benefits or $50 under the legislation and 40% of the claimant’s weekly benefits or $75 under Pilot Projects 12 and 17). However, they were reduced dollar-for-dollar thereafter and provided little incentive for EI claimants to work additional hours. Conversely, under the provisions of pilots in effect during the reporting fiscal year—Pilot Projects 19 and 20^{Footnote 66}—a claimant’s total income (from EI benefits and employment earnings) increases with hours worked, until it reaches 90% of their weekly insurable earnings, strengthening labour market attachment.

As a result, the provisions of the most recent pilots in effect have likely smoothed the distribution of hours worked by EI claimants relative to the provision of previous pilot projects or the legislation, and increased work intensity (see Chart 26).^{Footnote 67}

Text description of Chart 26

Weekly earnings as a share of weekly EI regular benefits	Legislation (April 2004 to November 2005)	Pilot Projects 12 and 17 (December 2008 to July 2012)	Pilot projects 18, 19 and 20 (August 2012 to March 2017)
0%-10%	2.1%	3.0%	2.5%
11%-20%	6.0%	5.3%	3.9%
21%-30%	12.1%	8.4%	5.4%
31%-40%	7.2%	14.7%	6.5%
41%-50%	5.1%	6.5%	4.8%
51%-60%	4.1%	4.2%	4.3%
61%-70%	4.1%	3.8%	4.4%
71%-80%	4.0%	3.7%	4.5%
81%-90%	4.0%	3.6%	4.4%
91%-100%	4.0%	3.6%	4.6%
101%-110%	4.1%	3.7%	4.8%
111%-120%	4.0%	3.9%	5.1%
121%-130%	4.6%	4.1%	5.4%
131%-140%	5.0%	4.6%	6.1%
141%-150%	5.7%	5.2%	6.7%
151%-160%	6.7%	5.8%	7.5%
161%-170%	7.7%	7.0%	8.5%
171%-180%	9.6%	9.0%	10.5%
Estimated Weekly Days of Work
Between 1/2 a day and a day	25% allowable earnings threshold (legislation)	40% allowable earnings threshold (Pilots 12 and 17)
Between 1-2 days
Between 2-3 days
About 3 days or more	No longer receiving benefits; deferred week (legislation)	No longer receiving benefits; deferred week (Pilots 12 and 17)	No longer receiving benefits; deferred week (50% from first $1) (Pilots 18 and 19)

^*Data are based on the weeks worked while on claim during the specified period, regardless of when the claim was established.
^**Excludes weeks worked while on claim with missing data, claims with weekly earnings as a share of weekly EI regular benefits above 180% and claims that reverted to Pilot Project 17.
^***Days worked are 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/her benefit rate, recalling that the benefit rate is 55% of the full-time wage, then the claimant is working 11% (20% x 55%) of his/her full-time wage, or approximately 1/2 day (11%x 5 days). This assumes that working claimants are earning approximately the same hourly wage as in their preivous employment with which they qualified for benefits, that they had been working full time prior to establishing a claim and that they had earned the maximum insurable earnings or below.

Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) administrative data. ESDC data are based on a 10% sample of EI administrative data.

This increase in work intensity since the implementation of WWC Pilot Project 18 is also reflected in the average weekly income—weekly EI regular benefits and employment earnings—of EI regular claimants WWC. Table 29 shows that the difference between the total weekly income of claimants WWC and those not WWC is higher since the provisions of Pilot Project 18 came into force in August 2012. This increase is primarily attributable to higher real average weekly employment earnings during weeks worked while on claim under the provisions of Pilot Projects 18, 19 and 20 ($584 during the reporting period)^{Footnote 68}. Table 29 also shows that while claimants working while on claim had, over the course of the entire claim, a higher average total weekly income than those who did not work while on claim, they received on average less EI benefits ($248 per week against $329 for those not working while on claim).^{Footnote 69}

Eligibility for Employment Insurance regular benefits among seasonal claimants

The annually published Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (EICS) by Statistics Canada for 2016 shows that the eligibility rate for regular benefits among temporary seasonal workers was higher than that for temporary non-seasonal workers,^{Footnote 73} but lower than that for permanent full-time workers. In 2016, 87.5% of unemployed seasonal workers who had paid EI premiums and had a valid job separation (that is, were laid off or quit with just cause) were eligible for regular benefits, compared to 66.4% of other temporary non-seasonal workers who were eligible. This eligibility rate for unemployed seasonal workers in 2016 was higher than their eligibility rate in the previous year (82.6%).

Duration of Employment Insurance regular benefits among seasonal claimants

The average maximum duration^{Footnote 74} of seasonal regular claims completed in FY1617 was 29.9 weeks, decreasing by 1.3 weeks from the previous year (31.2 weeks). The average maximum duration of completed non-seasonal regular claims was 34.3 weeks in FY1617 and 35.2 weeks in FY1516.

The average actual duration^{Footnote 75} of EI regular benefits for seasonal claims completed in FY1617 was 18.6 weeks, compared to 17.9 weeks in the previous fiscal year. For non-seasonal regular claimants, the average actual duration was 21.2 weeks for claims completed in FY1617 and 19.9 weeks in FY1516. Both the average maximum duration and the average actual duration of regular benefits are generally shorter among seasonal regular claimants than for non-seasonal regular claimants, reflecting the fact that the seasonal claimants generally accumulate fewer hours of insurable employment prior to establishing a claim than the non-seasonal claimants.

Overlapping definitions of seasonal and frequent claimants: internal analysis

Frequent claimants refer to those who have had three or more EI regular or fishing claims and have collected benefits for a total of more than 60 weeks in the past five years. On the other hand, seasonal claimants are defined as those who established three or more regular or fishing claims in the five fiscal years preceding the reference year of which at least two were established at the same time of year as their claim in the reference year. By definition, there is a significant overlap between frequent and seasonal claimants.

While both seasonal and frequent claimants must have established three or more claims in the past five years, they differ on two criteria: 1) frequent claimants have received a total of more than 60 weeks on EI regular or fishing benefits, while seasonal claimants do not need to receive EI benefits for a set number of weeks; and 2) the timing of establishing claims determines a claimant’s status as seasonal, while there is no such requirement for defining frequent claimants.

As outlined in Table 32, it can be seen that a greater number of EI regular claimants qualify as seasonal claimants relative to frequent claimants (380,680 seasonal claims compared to 285,690 frequent claims in FY1617). This suggests many seasonal regular claimants collect less than 60 weeks of regular benefits over a five-year period. At the same time, a large proportion of frequent claimants can be considered to be seasonal claimants as shown in Chart 29.

Text description of Chart 29

	Frequent, non-seasonal	Frequent and seasonal	Non-frequent, seasonal
Level of claims	56,800	228,900	151,800
Share of total frequent and seasonal claims	13.0%	52.3%	34.7%

^*See Annex 2.1 for definitions of frequent and seasonal claims 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.

Table 33 shows the comparison among EI regular claims completed in FY1617 among frequent seasonal, frequent non-seasonal and non-frequent seasonal claimants . There is not much difference between the frequent seasonal and frequent non-seasonal claimants in the average duration and the proportion of regular benefits paid. However, between the two non-overlapping populations, it can been seen that the non-seasonal frequent claimants had much longer average duration of regular benefits, used a greater proportion of regular weeks of benefits, and were more likely to exhaust their regular entitlement relative to the non-frequent seasonal claimants.