Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses.
I'll direct my comments first of all to Mr. Whyte and then Mr. Trahan and Mr. Weir with respect to this proposed EI board.
It strikes me as a bit of a half-pregnant solution. For those who argue EI should be segregated from consolidated revenue and set up under its own board and in effect act at arm's length from government, there is a step in that direction. But they've only funded the board to the tune of about $2 billion, while the actuaries say it needs to be funded to the tune of about $15 billion so that it doesn't act as a counter-cyclical measure on the economy.
So I'd be interested in your thoughts on this proposal, because on the face of it the proposal appears to be attractive. Mr. Whyte, you in particular express some enthusiasm for the proposal. But I'd suggest to you that in fact it may be counter-productive to some of the other things you have on your check list, particularly on down economic times when the government or the board in particular is going to have to raise its premiums in order to be able to maintain its $2 billion surplus. So the only place the premiums are going to come from is the people you represent, and they're going to be really unhappy campers if in fact the economy is going down. Their businesses are under pressure, as are Mr. Trahan's companies under pressure, as are Mr. Weir's on the other side of the equation, and yet those premiums are going to have to go up in order to be able to maintain what many argue is an insufficient level of reserves. I'd be interested in your comments.