Indeed. Based on the information we had, we examined the total number of days taken in a year, but also the incidence of leave of more than six days' duration. By analyzing all of this data, we were able to determine that the waiting period that is currently being proposed would mean that a large number of employees would run the risk of either not being paid, or of having to go to work while ill.
I will go back to what my colleague Ms. Benson was saying, which is that we should not be in this committee room trying to negotiate, to determine what is a good regime and what is a bad one. Ultimately, it is the unconstitutionality of the measure in this bill that is the most dramatic aspect of the situation. That is what we should be discussing and not minor technical aspects. As Mr. Lee said, it is as though we were discussing the merits of a three-legged stool.
Tony Clement said it publicly: he assumes that unions negotiate in bad faith and that they would not want to budge from their position. However, that is totally false. Several unions have already made counter-proposals. They admitted that the idea of a short-term disability plan was not necessarily bad. We admit that young workers may perhaps have better coverage. We admit all of that. All sorts of means could be used to reach those objectives, but what we come up against is the government's intransigence. It is using provisions in its budget to give itself extraordinary powers that are deeply unconstitutional.