Thank you for your question, Ms. Chabot.
Why do we feel it would be better for us to remove division 32 of part 5 of the bill? I think we would give us time to look into the matter in greater depth. A reform had been planned in 2015 and it still hasn't happened. Given where we are at the moment, we think it should be done properly and thoroughly. There is division 32 of part 5, but we know that there will probably be lots of other changes made to employment insurance, including the matter of accessibility. It would be helpful to remove this division of the bill in order to conduct a study on employment insurance.
As for the term “tripartite”, it's only that in name for the time being. The structure looks as if it's tripartite, but it is basically very different from what there was before, and we think there will be problems if it's applied as is.
I'll stop there, but it is certainly something to reconsider.