We have heard a lot of things today, but for a while now, we have the impression that the same tape is playing over and over. At least, that's the impression I have.
Today, we've talked about the proposal to expand EI benefit entitlement by five weeks. That is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't change the fact that the system currently discriminates against women. Few women manage to qualify for benefits because the system is outdated. It fails to take into account the fact that more and more women are employed in precarious, seasonal jobs. I can give you some idea of what it's like in the regions, since I toured the province of Quebec twice to meet with workers when we tabled the first version of Bill C-269 which called for improvements to the existing EI system.
You referred, Madam, to the human dimension of this issue. As it happens, I met with some women who worked in a shrimp processing plant in the Gaspé. They were working full out because the owner wanted the shrimp packaged as quickly as possible. These women do not manage to qualify for EI. Yet, they are old enough to be grandmothers and they are struggling. When I met with them, they were in tears. How can a person not feel for them? Many times, we've argued that the system needed to be improved because it did not correspond to women's day-to-day lives. Extending EI entitlement by five weeks is all well and good, but this initiative does not mean that more women will qualify and collect benefits.
Another reality is that of self-employed women. You describe their situation in your submission. The three recommendations put forward are also contained in the bill that was tabled in the House by, I repeat, my colleague. We have not invented anything new, merely relied on your studies and expertise, and on the experience of people, associations and support groups. We have the figures to back this up. I'm astonished to see people nit-picking. What are we waiting for to get this program up and running so that it benefits people? According to the experts, this initiative could help to stimulate the economy. When the statistics no longer report on women who cannot qualify, it means that the problem has been offloaded to the provinces. These women survive on social assistance. Can someone claim that she is helping to keep the economy afloat because she receives social welfare benefits? I hardly think so.
I don't really have a question for the witness.