I'll reply briefly to that. My colleague has some comments that she will also make in relation to this.
The workforce is highly diverse. Family forms are so numerous that they can't possibly be identified, and new ones are emerging all the time. The employment insurance system itself has a number of subprograms and seeks to fairly address the contingencies that arise in all of these different sectors.
But one of the hallmarks of responsible government action in this kind of situation is to focus on the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable are the people who have been so poor that they haven't been able to afford to take their full maternity leave, who have not been able to live in a family where, even together, the family has been able to take the full maternity leave, and whose incomes are so low that they don't qualify for any employment insurance at all.
So certainly there are specific situations where it might be nice to add a new fund to the employment insurance system to deal with situations such as those you describe, but the problem is that there's no systemic analysis that has preceded this kind of cherry-picking of groups in solutions. That's the problem.