Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate being able to question the witnesses. I'm not a regular member of the committee. I'm a substitute, but I have found it fairly interesting.
Correct me if I've got the wrong impression, but there seems to be a consensus that the overall concept behind the creation of the Employment Insurance Financing Board affords accountability and clarity and is by and large a good idea that needs only some tweaking. That's what I seem to be gathering, and all the heads are nodding.
So if you will indulge me a little bit, since topics sometimes wander in committee, I'm going to ask a little something on the whole issue that maybe hasn't been addressed today. I'd be curious to see what your reactions are.
One of the witnesses noted that 22% of EI payments are no longer for direct unemployment issues. They're for various other, shall we say, positive social aspects such as relatives being sick, maternity leave, etc. I'm curious to know your reactions and experiences. What if we proposed to separate those two aspects of EI payments and EI premiums, and separated them not just on the payment side but also on the premium side? This would essentially create two EI programs: one for unemployment questions, and one that would deal with the more social aspects. As these surpluses built up, we noted that there came to be all sorts of ideas to use it for other things besides EI.
I'm curious, given your expertise, to see how you think this would impact EI. Would it change things actuarially? Would calculations be easier, simpler? Would there be more risk?