You'll have to excuse my voice; I have a bit of a cold.
I want to say, first of all, I appreciate your bringing this forward. I think it is a very good idea. I had not thought of this myself, but I think it's a logical extension to the protection that we give workers. No worker wants to be on strike; no worker chooses easily to be on strike. It's usually something that arises in the normal negotiating of contract. You get to a point where the only option left for the worker is to remove his labour and to make his case in that way.
Most of these workers willingly pay into EI while they're working, and oftentimes many of the workers who I have known over the years don't ever avail themselves of the fund because they're not out of work. But we know that being out of work for any length of time, and particularly being on strike.... The workers in Sudbury who are on strike right now with Vale Inco are getting $200 a week. That doesn't pay for very much, and as you said earlier, it doesn't take long before you begin to see your assets disappear as you cash them in or use them to provide money to feed your kids.
Are you looking at this particularly out of the Quebec situation, where you have a very highly unionized workforce? Have you done any assessment or research in terms of Canada?