One or two things we agree on, I guess. He's nodding now. He's not going to be nodding in a second.
In closing, EI premiums are a tax on jobs. Organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have made that abundantly clear time and time again. The higher the premiums and the higher the cost for employers to have employees, the fewer jobs there are going to be. Giving back the accumulated surplus is probably too much to ask, although certainly I think we should continue to ask, but cutting premiums and ending the gouging once and for all is certainly within reason.
You must remember that this is not supposed to be a slush fund. This is an insurance fund, and so when the surplus exceeds actuarial needs, the solution isn't necessarily turn around and find a way to spend all the money. The better way is to take a look at how you can sustain that in the long term and translate that into lower costs for job creation.
That being said, I have just one last idea as I close. If you're desperate to spend some or all of this surplus, maybe we need to take a serious look at rewarding people who have been in the workforce over the long term, perhaps considering giving larger and longer benefits to people who, for example, have worked for 30 or 35 years and suddenly find themselves for the first time in their life trying to transition from a new career, because certainly that represents a far more significant challenge than setting up an EI system that basically encourages people from the word go not to work.
Thank you.