Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Allow me to thank and congratulate this morning's witnesses for the work that they have done. I am referring to the CLC, the Comité Chômage de Montréal, and the Canadian Auto Workers Union. You continue to do very good work.
Mr. Cirtwill, it is unfortunate that your opinion is so offensive to workers. I have worked with employees for 40 years. I am not going to knock what you said. You are entitled to your opinion, even though it illustrates an absolute misunderstanding about the context within which these workers find themselves when they lose their job. It's like saying that it is the pain medication that caused the illness. I am saying this so that you will give it some thought. I don't want to discuss it with you, I simply want you to know how I feel. It was hurtful.
I would also like to say that Mr. Céré is absolutely correct when it comes to assessing the costs. When he appeared before the committee on December 7, 2004, Mr. Malcolm Brown, assistant deputy minister with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development stated that a calculation based around the best 12 weeks would represent $320 million and would benefit approximately 470,000 claimants; the cost of changing the entrance requirement to a flat 360 hours would be $390 million. I think that your calculations are in keeping with what the department has determined to be the cost.
My questions are for Ms. Byers and Mr. Jackson. I believe that you did a study that was published in 2003 on the number of people who paid employment insurance premiums and who had the misfortune of losing their job. The study indicated that only 38% of them could ever hope to draw employment insurance benefits. According to the figures that you gave us this morning on the percentage of unemployed women, it appears that the situation continues to be very serious. Am I mistaken? Your conclusions always seem to be the same.
Moreover, the minister of the day said more or less the same thing in 2004. It angers me to hear that, but I repeat that Mr. Cirtwill is entitled to his opinion. Mr. Volpe, the Liberal minister, in response to a question that I asked him in the House of Commons, told me that employment insurance—we no longer call it unemployment insurance and I understand why—is for people who want to work. He implied that the government philosophy was to give as little help as possible to workers so that they would go out and find another job, and we know where that type of philosophy leads.
I would like to hear what you have to say about those two points. If we have time, I will raise another one.