Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank all of our witnesses for coming today. As a new member of Parliament, I appreciate that you took the time. As a new member of this committee, I realize that many of the issues that we're talking about have been studied previously, but there's always more work to do. With the economic hardships that we are experiencing, it is very important to look at all the issues.
Today, we have been mandated to deal specifically with the EI program. You did refer to the pay equity issue, and I accept your comments, but I respectfully disagree with you. I do believe that unions have a responsibility, and as a woman, I truly want to be treated equally. I want to make sure that if I was part of a union or part of a bargaining group that I would have the same treatment as my male counterpart in making sure that pay equity was achieved. That's just a side note.
I think as a government--and some of my honourable colleagues have been on the government side before--we definitely have a responsibility to balance programs and to assist individuals who are in need, both men and women, with responsible government. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer and to the private sector, which also bears a large burden for the general programs the government implements. We're also in an economic recession that is not of our doing, and you've referred to that as well, Madam. This is something that's hit us. I think we need to be responsible as a government so that we are not penalizing the private sector for something that is beyond their control. So as a government, as parliamentarians, and as advocates for women, how do we balance what we're doing as a government with helping people? I think that's what we truly want to find out and what we truly want to discover. Life is always about a balance, isn't it? That's our goal.
Ms. Lahey, one of your concerns is that the $2 billion this government announced in the budget for EI benefits tends to exclude women. That was your term, which is not too flattering, and it's not something that we really want to encourage. You specifically referred to the fact that, and I'll just read this:
New women workers who might qualify under these enhancements are those who have been staying at home for long periods of time with their children, not women who have merely taken maternity leave and then returned to non-qualifying work.
That struck me because many of the women in my riding are wives of producers and farmers who are going through very difficult times. Specifically, the livestock sector has been going through very difficult times over the last five years, even before the economic crisis hit. Many of these rural women--and I think I do speak on behalf of many rural women--focus on their family farm or their home, but they have to change focus and have to go back to work and get a job. Many times, though, they really want a job that is not overly demanding. They want to go to a job where they can put in their hours, but get back home and focus on what is most important to them. I see those new workers as being very different from, for example, a woman who has taken a full maternity benefit and then wants to go back to work. Do you see the difference between both of these workers, and do you acknowledge that we have provided...? You mentioned the 910.... We have reduced the amount of time that new workers have to put in before they collect EI, but I see a difference between new workers versus women who have taken maternity benefits and are entering the workforce. That's one of my first questions.