Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate all the witnesses today.
Ms. Deans, I do not have time, unfortunately, in the six minutes to ask questions of Habitat for Humanity and you, but thank you very much for the work you do in London as an organization. You mentioned London in your opening remarks. It is deeply appreciated in the city, and for very good reason. The organization has a really sterling reputation in our community. Please keep it up. I'm always happy to help where I can. What a wonderful group it is.
Ms. Masotti, it's nice to see you again. I know that you've appeared before, and we've spoken in the past. It's always interesting when we have witnesses who come and speak about the budget and their point of view is shared by other witnesses who came earlier in the week. Your thoughts on the extension of the sickness benefit from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, as found in the budget, are shared by many, including David Macdonald, who is the senior economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. When the budget was released, he said the following about this specific reform. I'm quoting here from the Toronto Star, where he said, “These are positive long-term changes.” As well, “You can get EI if you lose your job, but you can also get EI if [you're] sick. So if you’re struggling with cancer...you can now receive EI for longer.”
Obviously, I know you agree with that, and your testimony reflects that, certainly, but for those for whom your organization continues to advocate, how critical is this change?
I ask in light of the fact that I've heard some colleagues hinting—this is certainly not universal, but some colleagues—that they think the budget goes too far, that it expands the role of the state, that it is too generous. They haven't used those words, but I do get that feeling sometimes in hearing colleagues speak about it, particularly my Conservative colleagues.
Could you speak about the importance of this change?