Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question goes to Mr. Prince and Mr. Stapleton.
We talked in more detail about the way to improve the employment insurance scheme, but I would like to start with a more general question. These thoughts have been occurring to me since the beginning of this study and the end of the one we conducted just before. We know that the government has not been contributing to the employment insurance fund since the beginning of the 1990s; just employers and employees do so. On the other hand, the government is under a lot of pressure to increase maternity benefits. In a previous study, we were concerned with supporting grieving parents. As you said, 15 weeks is not enough for 35% of people. In fact, 135,000 people need longer than 15 weeks and, as we know, one in every two Canadians is at risk of developing cancer, so it can only increase. We are seeing it in our study on episodic disabilities. The government has also established a program for caregivers. Those who live in a reality other than that of losing a job find it difficult to be committed to a process that is not designed for them.
The question I ask myself, and that I would like your opinion about, is this: in terms of the need to reform the employment insurance program, which I believe everyone agrees on, should we not arrange matters so that the employment insurance fund is used only for those who lose their jobs? We could use the opportunity to make the program more accessible so that, for example, 60% of the people who contribute to the fund receive benefits from it, unlike the current situation. Then, through its departments, the government could invest in parallel programs specifically designed for those on maternity leave, those who have lost children, the sick, or those with episodic disabilities. Those programs should be flexible enough to avoid those people having to line up at Service Canada with those who have recently lost their jobs. I am tending to that solution more and more. What do you think about it?