One of the concerns I have about this whole process is this. Let's say that we put the new financing toward a crown corporation in place and that we have a new rate-setting mechanism. I'm hoping that parliamentarians don't say that we're now finished with it and we don't need to look at EI, because there are other things about EI that I think need to be looked at.
This committee, in the past, has recommended the early basic exemption, for example, which I think is an excellent idea, which sort of shadows the CPP. Particularly in our industry, in which we have workers who are temporary or who come in and work for only short periods of time for a particular employer, the fact that a certain amount of their income is exempt from EI makes eminent sense. So I think there are other things we have to look at.
This whole discussion we're getting into about whether there should be some separation between the more social types of programs and the training or point types of programs in EI really needs a bigger audience. We need to look at that. I would certainly welcome that kind of discussion. But again, we run the risk of suggesting to the public that somehow the establishment of this board is going to have a say in that. I think we'd better watch what we're saying, because that may be contributing to the miscommunication that this bill is somehow going to influence how we look at those issues.
To answer your question, I think those are very valid points. They're very valid concerns. We should continue to look at EI to improve it. We shouldn't allow the establishment of this board, although it's very important, and the new rate-setting mechanism to somehow be the be-all and end-all. There are other things we have to look at in this area.