The Auditor General reminded us that in 2004, $46 billion were stolen from the Employment Insurance Fund—really, it was theft—and in the course of its work in 2004-2005, this committee recommended that those $46 billion be put back into the Employment Insurance Fund at the rate of $1.5 billion per year.
This money rightly belongs in the fund. The committee had also recommended that the amount, which today is $54 billion, be considered as a loan to the government that should be repaid into the fund.
How can you argue that the money should not go back into the fund, when the reverse applies, namely that the money which will be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and put into the fund, will have to be repaid to the government with interest? How does that stand to reason?