Actually, thank you for the question, because I'm getting a little tired of being accused of having a bias and just stating feelings.
I supplied to the committee before I arrived a copy of a study we did following the 1996 changes, which demonstrated the positive impacts of reducing the EI, basically matching the econometric models that had come before them. So they're actually hard numbers on the ground, demonstrating the benefits around tightening the rules, discouraging people from repeat use, getting back to the word that we used here earlier, about the fact that EI is supposed to be temporary, so talking about limiting the repeat use of employment insurance.
The other interesting thing is that we did supply to the committee—and I hope the members get a chance to look at it later on—a copy of a 2007 study that took a look at Maine and New Brunswick, because it is a natural social experiment in that you have two jurisdictions sitting side by side, with very similar populations, very similar demographics, geographics, and everything, the only really significant difference being their EI.
This research was actually funded by the Canadian government, the Canadian embassy in Washington. I think the committee will find those findings very fascinating, because what they show is that, with a high level of EI premiums regularly available to people on a systemic basis year over year, you see a larger percentage of your population actually taking EI and staying out of the workforce.
So it's not that Atlantic Canadians are lazy; it's that they're not stupid. If you're going to pay them more than they would get working, why in God's good name would they work?