My role here, as parliamentary secretary for the minister who has carriage of EI in particular and of some of the other benefits, is a little different from the other committee members, but I do have a question. This is one of several studies we've received at this committee that has sought to renovate the EI program to accommodate very compelling and very important dynamics that are emerging as the workplace changes, but also as our understanding changes of what constitutes disability and other elements beyond that. Bereavement for sudden infant death is an issue we're also contending with. All of it ties back into EI because EI is the one federal social assistance program that people turn to when they ask themselves how they can modify dynamics to support income.
What we're running into as a country is that it's an insurance program. As you expand the benefit requirements of the program, at some point it adjusts the actuary table, and you have to start dealing with the way in which it's funded. Somebody has to pay for this insurance process, and that's the EI contribution that employers make and that workers make when they work. As you said, if you're in a part-time job and you don't pay enough, you don't qualify. If we're going to give benefits without paying in, the math doesn't add up at a certain point. That's one challenge.
Clearly, there needs to be comprehensive EI reform, but where we're also hammered on this is that every time we talk about EI reform, it's referred to in Parliament and in political circles as a payroll tax. It's said that we're destroying jobs and destroying the economy. “Don't touch the payroll taxes. It's a payroll tax”—that's the political wall we run into.
How do we deal with those ideologues who see every adjustment to an insurance program...? CPP is included in this. When you change CPP, they go crazy as well. How do we get past that wall if some of the very people who are asking us to fix EI don't want us to actually pay for it with EI premiums?