I guess the first point I should mention is that for the six million who are covered through a premium reduction program that EI incites employers to offer, many of those have access to a longer coverage right now as one of the benefits of being covered under that program.
With respect to the 15 weeks, it was established several decades ago based on consultations with doctors and the medical community and employers at the time. What we know about the access to the 15 weeks is that on average about nine and a half weeks are used, so the average amount used is about nine and a half weeks. Only about 30% right now use the maximum 15.
There was a recent Stats Can study that looked at the duration of illness and absence from the workforce, and it confirmed that this average absence is about 10 weeks. So the evidence, in the monitoring that we've been doing, suggests that there hasn't been a significant change in terms of the needs, at least that we're observing within the context of the EI program.
EI is designed on the concept of a short-term absence from one's job, supporting employment income during that period, presuming that the person will return to one's job. So there is a question of a 50-week duration. That's about three times the current duration, and at that point it does raise a policy question as to the number of individuals who would be returning specifically to that employment relationship. Because the program is funded by both employers and employees, those are the types of things that would need to be clarified.