Thank you.
You decided to apply a retroactive measure to existing beneficiaries whereas it would normally apply only to new beneficiaries. Let us not forget that some people applied for benefits in January. Normally, they are still collecting benefits. This is why you can go back nine months. These people have not exhausted their benefits yet, and you intend to extend them. I find it hard to accept this argument on this basis. Could you give me an explanation?
Even if we go back, people are already benefiting from the five extra weeks. Besides, in the last budget, the department was very proud of having added five weeks. We are dealing with long-term beneficiaries and not with regular seasonal workers. These people normally would have received 45 weeks of benefits, or 50 maximum, which could have taken them at least to November or December, given that this measure would be in force on October 15.
You identified these people, but the bill could also have included people who are still collecting benefits and not those who have left and are working elsewhere. For someone making their second claim... I would like to hear Mr. Clarke, because I think that if the claimant is making a second claim, he has probably received 35 weeks of benefits and he would not be eligible in any case.