I just want to expand it. Certainly in terms of ACTRA, CAW, and ourselves, what we've really been talking about is fairness in access and opportunity and benefit payments and levels. I think there's some consistency, although there are obviously some differences.
I'm going to go back to what we've been hammering away at. When I said the 360 hours and so on, I think the problem we're going to find with what's proposed here is that we may in fact have a woman who's worked in a hotel for ten years, and because of the way the current EI system is structured, when she needs to take maternity and parental leave she won't have access to it because she doesn't have the number of hours that are needed. Yet someone else who has contributed from the self-employed side for a shorter period of time and has had the option to not pay in will in fact have access. We're going to find that low-income women who are employed are actually going to be supplementing a lot of other people. They currently are as well. That's the reality.
I go back again to what needs to be done as well. When we're looking at this system, the 360 hours has to apply for all people who are in part of the system and so on. When we're looking at it we need to have a system that is fair. We've long advocated that the self-employed be included in employment insurance. It has been our policy for a long time, but it was on the basis that it was a social insurance system and that everybody was in.