1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«This paper addresses social inequalities in the take-up of parental benefits over a seventeen-year period [between 2000 and 2016] in the four largest Canadian provinces: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec.» (p. 169-170)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
To measure the take-up of parental leave benefits in the four provinces, the authors «used comparative provincial data from the Employment Insurance Coverage Survey (EICS) […].» (p. 178) «As a way to document Québec’s exceptionalism, [they] also use[d] administrative data compiled by the Conseil de gestion de l’assurance parentale (CGAP), which […] ensures that benefits are paid to new parents.» (p. 179)

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

Results show that, accross «Canada, access to and take-up of parental benefits are determined by three main factors. The first of these is economic activity. [P]arents that are not active in the labour market do not qualify to receive parental benefits. […] In Québec, the elevated take-up of maternity benefits […] reflects other dynamics related to the province’s generous family policy, which has included low-cost, high quality childcare since the late 1990s […]. [Also], in Québec, where economic participation rates among men aged 25-44 are the lowest, over 80 percent of fathers have been taking paternity benefits since 2006 […].» (p. 184-185) «A second factor influencing patterns of inequalities is the way parents access parental leave time and money: job-entitlement leave time and monetary benefits. […] Since 2006, Québec has had its own parental benefit program and eligibility criteria that are easy to meet compared to [what is] required of parents in the other provinces.» (p. 186) «Parental benefit regimes are a third indicator of patterns of income and gender inequalities. […] An examination of after-tax Gini coefficients from 2000 to 2017 for the four provinces under study reveals that Québec consistently stands out as the province with the most effective income distribution policies […].» (p. 186-187)