Yes, certainly.
There are differences in the way in which the unemployed versus beneficiaries are measured. You'll know that in a study produced under the monitoring and assessment report, maybe three or four years ago, there was a discussion of different ways of measuring.
One route of measuring is to look at the unemployed versus those who contribute, so the self-employed people who are unemployed, whom Sue Calhoun and Joan Macklin talked about, are not included in that measure.
Another way is to look at the number of unemployed versus those who are receiving benefits. I would argue that in this period, and particularly when one is looking at those who are precariously employed—solo self-employed, part-time, temporary, etc.—who are in situations in which they are unemployed, it is absolutely essential to look at the reality of the labour market, that is, who's unemployed versus who's receiving benefits.
I would also echo your comments about the importance of research that is directed to informing our public policy. I also have regret; I think that study was very important for understanding the situation of women in Canada around EI.
I would also like to emphasize that I think it's important to look at regular employment insurance expenditures by sex. I think it is very true that women are the primary beneficiaries of the special benefits. However, in 2006-07, the monitoring and assessment report reported that men received $5.3 billion worth of benefits and women received $2.8 billion of benefits, when one looks at regular EI expenditures. I can certainly provide you with the reference to that. I think it's something that's very important to emphasize, particularly in this recession.
So the comment that women are the primary beneficiaries of EI needs to be looked at by separating out regular and special benefits.