Could I stop you there?
When you say refusing a claim, if a claim is denied because.... For the sake of argument, in Edmonton it was 599 hours that were needed. If they worked 580 and they didn't qualify, that's not savings. How are they trying to define “savings” when someone wouldn't have been eligible to apply under the EI Act?
I understand savings if they're going after people who were overpaid, or who left the country to go down to the States. There are always clawbacks. I'm just trying to figure out how they came up with this dollar value for savings. It can't be for turning people down, because the savings would have been in the hundreds of millions.