I appreciate that you want me to answer your question in a particular way, but I'm going to exercise my right to answer it as I would choose.
I'm going to say that the $2 billion we put in, I think, does recognize the fact that premiums have come in during the time we've been in government and were utilized for things other than employment insurance benefits, and so we are fixing the problem going forward. That's an important point, because in making this an arm's-length body, it ensures that the funds going forward will only be used for these things.
Second—and this is a very important point, Mr. Lessard—our party and your party differed fundamentally on this aspect of the use of employment insurance benefits in the past. We were concerned about how that funding was being spent, and you were as well. One thing that separated us from your party is that your party was very excited and wanted to increase spending even more than the previous government was increasing spending, meaning that those funds that came from employers and employees were used to increase spending. You were supportive of that each and every time. We opposed that, partly because we opposed the idea of taking those funds for things other than improving benefits. That's a very fundamental difference between us.