Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for having me.
My researcher behind me tells me a very interesting point that Ms. Hoeppner brought up earlier, that someone in the disabled community had suggested one over the other. In actual fact, her first choice was that she wanted both. That was her choice. So in this particular situation....
But if Ms. Hoeppner feels that she would like to make it a choice between people, maybe she could suggest to the Prime Minister to make that an option for all people: you have a choice, two or five. I'd suggest that she may have gotten a different answer.
The reason I bring that up is because I want to ask the members here about the situation with EI.
Ms. Vosko, you brought up the divisor rule. This is something I've been...because in my riding, people are heavily into seasonal work.The divisor rule was a situation that really was detrimental to seasonal workers, but also to casual workers as well.
In this particular situation, we did create a pilot project that provided the best 14 weeks to get around this divisor rule. Of course, the biggest industry in my riding is the fishery, including plant workers beyond the fishers.
I'd ask you to comment on that divisor rule. Perhaps you could give us some information on how that works and how it's a detriment. But also, of the three things you suggested, the 360 hours, best 12 weeks, restore to 67%, which particular measure is the one that you think would be of bigger benefit to the people who you're talking about? Or which particular measure here is of the biggest detriment to women in general?