Mr. Chair, I think we should not put this on hold. This committee is used to hard work. The Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is the department's interlocutor, the one that has the biggest budget, particularly when it comes to the social safety net. We represent $80 and some odd billion out of $240 billion. We have to expect that this committee is going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting.
For years, all of the parties hoped that the separate employment insurance fund would be brought back. Our colleague Mr. Cuzner is quite right: that hope was unanimous in the previous Parliament. The Liberals in power agreed to review it. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they agreed with us. To the point that they thought that diverting billions of dollars from the fund was very serious. We also all agreed—this is recommendation 4—to put that money back in the fund. That isn't the issue here, but it gives us an idea of what parliamentarians wanted to do at that time, and have always wanted to do.
We are capable of doing two things at once. We have to tackle the question of poverty and organize our work accordingly. Not everyone will be going to the Indian reserves, for example. While some people are investigating on the ground, others could continue to work. We should try to handle both. This work is not going to be a marathon.
Before starting this work, the government should have firm intentions regarding three things. First, the nature of this committee's terms of reference, which are set out relatively clearly in the budget, could be reiterated. Second, how will the commission be created? What will be the composition of the commission, and how will it operate? Third, what will its relationship be with the House? The budget says it reports to the Minister. I think there should be more.
It should report to the House, which was the unanimous will of the committee. The commission, led by the Chief Actuary, will set the premium rate and make the rules. When the premium rate changes, it will submit the change to the House. We have to stop saying that the commission's purpose is to regulate premiums. Saying that sort of thing is a distortion of its mission.
Every time, we are told there is virtually no money in the fund. Certainly the more the premiums are reduced, the less money there is. It is that dynamic that the committee should be looking at. It is not enough just to know what the organizations think about it. When they come to testify, they have to have the operational structure in front of them in order to express an opinion. We might have a fine car with a bad engine. We have to make sure that the car we are going to be driving has a good engine, so that it can get this mission to its destination.
Do I have to make a motion about this before we start our proceedings? In the next two weeks, we could draw up the terms of reference and decide what the composition of the commission will be and how it will operate, and what its relationship with the House will be.