I would like to continue along the same lines as the previous questioner and I would like our Conservative colleagues to listen closely because if they ask the same question again, Mr. Chairman, that would be rather unfortunate.
Before January of last year, when the Conservatives were in the opposition and the Liberals were in power, this committee, which was made up of other members, including Mr. Cuzner whom we had the honour of having with us yesterday, Mr. Godin and myself, worked for more than one year on the report that is before us and that contains 28 recommendations. The 27th recommendation corresponds exactly to Mr. Eyking's bill.
When we undertook this study, we heard approximately 50 groups. There was no lack of witnesses. Those individuals testified on a variety of items which led to the committee drafting 28 recommendations.
For the benefit of our Conservative colleagues once again, I would say that throughout that process, the Conservatives never questioned the idea of using the employment insurance fund for benefits during sick leave. Today this is what they're doing.
Mr. Godin's question is therefore the right one. If this is going to apply for the 50 weeks, then logically it should also apply to the 15 weeks, Mr. Chairman. What we need to determine is whether or not this is the right fund to use to pay for leave on compassionate grounds. We think it is for now, because that is the fund that has been used to date. None of the parties have questioned that.
If the Conservatives do not think that this is the appropriate fund, then they should table a bill that suggests we go elsewhere for that money. The issue before us is not whether or not the period of time should be extended, but rather whether this is the right fund or not.
Mr. Chairman, let's not play around with words. I want us to be clear with each other. If they do not agree with increasing the number of weeks, then they should simply say so. I do not think it is right to use false excuses for abstaining from voting. If our Conservative friends are convinced that this is not the right fund, then they should table a bill that would provide for money being put into another fund at another time. I don't know which fund that would be, but they probably know. Meanwhile, let's not deprive individuals who need compassionate leave from receiving financial assistance.
Our friend Mr. Chong was asking whether or not this solution was economically viable. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to offend our friends opposite, however Mr. James stated that people take on average nine days of leave. More specifically, 32% of individuals take 32 days. If the period is extended to 50 weeks, that average may be 10 or 11 days, but it will not endanger the fund. There has been a surplus year after year. The money simply has to be used appropriately and not for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't have come back to this, but I do find it somewhat shocking. In my opinion, whether or not the fund is viable is not the issue. Nor is whether or not this is the right place to take the money from the issue. The issue is whether or not they agree on increasing the number of weeks to 50. Then it would be clear. If they refuse, then we must accept that. They have a right to refuse, but they should have the courage to say so.