I think the Conservatives should have verified this information for reasons of rigour and intellectual honesty. In response to questions asked by Liberal members, the Prime Minister on two occasions referred to different figures. First of all, he said that with respect to the 360-hour qualifying period, people would no longer need to have worked 45 days to receive 52 weeks of EI benefits. Later, he referred to 60 days in order to get the 52 weeks.
There is a serious lack of rigour here. The rigour that is being used to best determine how to help the affluent is not being used to help those that are less well-off.
One just needs to think of the unemployment rate rule, for instance, which would apply here. If there is an unemployment rate of 6% on the basis of 360 hours, that would give an individual in the region 14 weeks of employment insurance benefits. If there is an unemployment rate of 16% in another region, another person will be getting 36 weeks of benefits.
As a general rule, we can say that the number of weeks entitling unemployed people to benefits would fall within this bracket. If they go beyond 36 weeks, there would be specific measures for the regions, and those would be exceptions.
When people say so flippantly that working 360 hours entitles people to 52 weeks of employment insurance benefits, it is misleading and absolutely frivolous.