Madam Speaker, there are a couple things to keep in mind in this debate. For a period of time, the Paul Martin administration took $54 billion of employment insurance and put the money into general revenue. It is a fact that employment insurance is not really the government's money; it comes from employees and employers and we are just custodians of that.
My question is with regard to the extension of benefits. We have seen the improvement to maternity leave, going from one year to one and a half years. People can take that one and a half years, but their benefits are then stretched over the extra time. They are not actually increased, and that is a sad thing. When somebody is off for a longer period of time, not only is it good for the child but also for the employee, because that time allows someone to have a stable job for much longer and his or her skills get better. Therefore, it is better for our economy, too.
I would ask the member to comment on the fact that if we extend these benefits, the training, expertise and stability in the workforce are also improved, which makes us more competitive as a nation. It is very much an improvement for our economy in that way, too.