Human Resources committee  That is estimated at $320 million per year, and 480,000 clients.

Human Resources committee  There are some other elements of the bill to reflect as well. The Savage amendment, as we understand it, would not change the fixed entrance requirement at 360 hours for special benefits only. I believe that aspect of the bill would stand. That has a cost to itself.

Human Resources committee  It's $200 million per year, 25,000 claimants. That part of Bill C-265 would be left standing.

Human Resources committee  Our understanding is that this flows from clause 2.

Human Resources committee  It's to reduce the variable entrance requirement across the program, on a national basis, by 70 hours.

Human Resources committee  Yes, from 910 hours to 840 hours.

Human Resources committee  I certainly could do that.

Human Resources committee  The 910 down to 840 is $160 million per year and 34,500 claimants. Again, these are estimates of populations we're not serving right now. They are more difficult to estimate than populations we are serving. For example, an increased benefit rate just applies to an existing popula

Human Resources committee  No, these don't--

Human Resources committee  The major attachment and minor attachment provisions are left at 360 hours.

Human Resources committee  I'll put some particular caution around one of the amendments that's related to the reduction in variable entrance requirements by 70 hours. In that one in particular, to fully and accurately cost the change we would need more information about the benefit entitlement table relat

Human Resources committee  Yes.

Human Resources committee  In speaking to that amendment, basically we interpret that as being a reduction in the variable entrance requirement by about 70 hours across the board, and a second element of the amendment is related to a reduction in the new re-entrant requirement by about 70 hours as well.

Human Resources committee  I think what Mr. Brown was mentioning at the time was that the addition of the individual costs for the program was a minimum estimate—and that applies to the 2004 numbers as well. The combined package is something we weren't able to estimate, and we haven't estimated it for this

Human Resources committee  Sure. All I can mention is that the costs associated with the change to the program are very dependent on the specificity with which we're provided in terms of the change. So it's not to say the costs provided in 2004 were incorrect; they were the baseline preliminary estimates w