Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is something basically unhealthy about the dynamic that has developed around the employment insurance fund. We are told about a theoretical reserve, about theoretical surpluses. The premiums are not theoretical. The cutbacks to employment insurance are not theoretical. But the way in which this is used, and which we are not aware of, is not theoretical because the money is accumulating in the fund.
On December 7, 2005, at the request of the committee, Mr. Malcolm Brown who was then the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, came to testify. He had done some research following which he appeared before the committee to give us the results of his calculations.
The highest cost, for a coverage rate of 55 to 60%, was $1.2 billion per year. If the eligibility threshold was set at 360 hours, the cost would be $390 million and we would reach 90,000 more unemployed. If the criteria of the 12 best weeks was kept, the cost would be $320 million and we would reach 470,000 unemployed workers. If the maximum went from 45 to 50 weeks, the cost would be $11 million. That does not seem like much, and he was then asked why this seemed like so little. He answered that not everyone reached the 45-week level. He told us that they extrapolated according to the experience within the system, which allowed them to assess this hypothetical amount of approximately $11 million. The maximum insurable amount would then go from $39,000 to $41,000, therefore at $245 million, for a total of $1.9 billion. At the time this research was being done, the employment insurance fund was generating huge surpluses, year after year. The surplus for 2004 was $3.3 billion. For 1997, it was $7 billion. This is not theoretical. The premium rate was quite high, and at that time, the employment insurance eligibility rules had already been radically tightened.
In its 28 recommendations, the committee suggested that these diverted funds be gradually brought back into the fund, the funds that have been referred to as theoretical sums. We were told, and this is quite right, that this money was used at the discretion of the minister. However, these amounts should not be used at the discretion of the minister, but rather at the discretion of those who paid money into the fund.
The reimbursement of this money to the fund, at the rate we have foreseen, that is $1.5 billion per year, which would in no way compromise Canada's finances, would allow us to meet almost three quarters of these costs, without counting the surplus. Let us see how much of the 12-billion-dollar surplus achieved by the Canadian government this year has once again been taken from the fund, despite the reduction in premiums. That is what I have to say about the answers you have sent us.
I will now give the floor to my colleague, who wanted to ask a question about the Summer Career Placement Program.