Thank you, Chair.
I'll resist the urge to respond to Ed's comments about the CST. We have our opportunity in the House of Commons to debate those things, which we do very calmly and rationally on occasion.
But I don't question his motivation in being serious about wanting to do something about poverty. I can't say that about all of his colleagues, or about all of my colleagues, for that matter, but this committee is trying to get some answers.
I'm intrigued and pleased by your continuing references to supply-side economics. I noted that one of its architects in the States, Jack Kemp, passed away recently. The Kemp-Roth bill of the 1970s led to Ronald Reagan and supply-side economics, the idea being that you sort of take government out of the way and let the rich do well, and then it will trickle down. That led not only to a collapse of social infrastructure but to huge deficits as well, which it was never supposed to do.
In fact, if you compare that model to the model of some of the Nordic countries or the more progressive countries that do invest in social infrastructure, they're doing well economically. They manage their budgets quite well and take care of their citizens in a way that we would probably do well to emulate.
On the EI piece, this graph from the Caledon Institute shows the percentage of men and women and then the overall average percentage of Canadians who are receiving employment insurance benefits. It's gone from a high of 83% in 1990 down to 43%. A lot of parties share the blame for that. The minister talks about 82%, which is a technically correct number, but it's a sort of manufactured, gerrymandered number which is meant to ignore the fact that so many people are systematically eliminated from qualifying for EI benefits.
My friend Dominic LeBlanc, who some of you would know, often talks about two people at the same plant who could be laid off together. One might live in Moncton and one might live somewhere else along the French Shore. One would qualify for benefits and one wouldn't. That basic inequity has to be fixed, so I think the 360-hour standard makes a lot of sense. Then you look at whether you do the two weeks or the five weeks or where you go on that.
I want to ask you something. Anybody who wants to can answer. A number of people are excluded from being full participants in the wealth of this nation. Two of the most notable groups are aboriginal Canadians and people with disabilities.
Last week, some of us had a chance to spend a day in a wheelchair for the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Tony and I did it, and perhaps some others here. It's an eye-opening experience and a tiny glimpse into what it's like. I wonder if any of you have thoughts or specific ideas for how we should have a social infrastructure that better protects, enhances, and provides opportunity of access to Canadians with disabilities.