Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge many of the fine points that the hon. member made. His description of a disincentive to work is one of the cornerstones of what is in the green book.
I would like to ask him a question. I acknowledge that unemployment insurance social benefits may raise the unemployment insurance rate. That is hard to quibble with. Some people think we should do away with unemployment insurance or lower the benefits of unemployment insurance. They often point to the Americans and say: "Look at their unemployment rate. It is much lower than Canada's and the main reason is because they have less generous unemployment insurance benefits".
Is there not going to be a cost if we toughen up the system? Many thousands of people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. They have no available work to go to. I come from a community on the north shore of Lake Erie that suffered greatly in the last recession. We lost 5,000 manufacturing jobs in a town of 30,000 people. There were no real options for those people.
If we look at the American example we see that they do not have decent unemployment insurance programs. They have people living on the street. They have entire families living on the street. They have charities for no other purpose than to provide medical care for children of people who live on the street.
Is there not going to be a cost? We are going to have more poor people in this country. While making the system tougher will encourage some people to find jobs, there will be vast numbers of people, through no fault of their own, who will simply be put in a worse situation than they are. Crime rates will go up and all sorts of other terrible social conditions will come into the foray.