Thanks very much, and thanks, Dick, for being here today and making your presentation.
I'd just like to make a clarification for Mr. Butt, though. They're not collecting a benefit. The whole purpose of the bill is to address just that departure from the program. So, yes, you have to be available for work. They're not filling out those cards saying they're available for work while they're incarcerated. The bill pushes at going after the exemption for being out of the program for two years. It's somewhat different.
When I read the bill I was surprised, too, with the way that provision was in the EI. I never had to go through it with a constituent, but I share the opinion of Ms. Crowder on this that it is a right. We know that incarceration is about recourse and retribution, but also most Canadians believe it's about reform and rehabilitation. And we're not really looking at hard-core criminals for this period of time. Yes, some made a mistake. For some, it's a crime of passion, some people are being stupid, or whatever it might be...and some people have mental illnesses. We know that the prison system is loaded with people with mental illnesses and what have you.
I don't disagree with you. It's frustrating when you're sitting down with a constituent who has been denied a benefit, and you say, “It doesn't make any sense that this person, who is just trying to get by, is denied this benefit.” But I think the responsibility then becomes: let's work to try to fix that aspect of the EI system, as opposed to just throwing in something else. Now if this doesn't work, if this doesn't yield what it is supposed to yield, then we can look at changing this. But just because you think one aspect isn't fair, I don't know if it's right to look at changing another aspect.
I'm a little disappointed that we don't know the scope of how many people this impacts and the costs, and I'm just wondering if the researchers might be able to provide us with that or....