Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, I too would like to congratulate our colleague Mr. Eyking on this initiative. We completely concur with the objective. I would also like to thank both witnesses for being here today.
You know, personally, I think this again gives real meaning to the work we should be doing here as members, that is, introducing bills or regulations that will help those who need it most.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the remarkable work of volunteers who work with people with health problems. Mr. Kyle mentioned earlier that his organization has more than 220,000 volunteers. The work they do is extraordinary. They are often referred to as natural caregivers, as though it were natural for them to make up for a shortcoming on the part of the government. People will generally help their loved ones out of the goodness of their hearts, and they do not need support in any way.
However, in other circumstances, they are forced to stop working for a certain period of time. Mr. Eyking told us earlier that 32% of people who use what is known as compassionate leave do so for the maximum period, which is 15 weeks. This shows that 32% of these people needed more time. It is a stable ratio. The average is nine weeks a year and, over the years, it has been increasing by about 1%. Thus, we see that it is stable. So we are not too far off in the assessment of the costs involved, especially since there seems to be a consensus on this, I believe.
I am pleased to see here again today two of our colleagues, Mr. Cuzner and Mr. Godin, who were here in 2004 when we worked on the recommendations for the EI reforms. There were 28 recommendations. Recommendation no. 27 specifically addresses this. If we are to be consistent, we should support your bill. If we are to be consistent, we should all, including the Conservatives, endorse this support.
I want to be very clear. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Lake's situation. We found ourselves earlier hearing an argument that has to do with another bill. In this case, there is no question of overlapping responsibilities. It is a federal responsibility that has to do with money held by the federal government, which must fulfill its responsibilities.
Mr. Chair, I will not drone on about the need for this bill. The question I would like to ask our three guests is the following. The current prevailing argument states that we could undermine the protection of workers in terms of their private insurance or group employment insurance. It seems to me that it is up to the insurers to adapt accordingly. They have always done so in the past, when new legislation is adopted. I would like you to talk a little bit about this. We have even received letters about it. I have before me a letter from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. I do not blame these people for writing to us to express their concerns, but I would like to hear about the situation in terms of real consequences. Have you had the opportunity to reflect on this? If so, in what way?