But just to clarify this, if you were to take the money that was used to pay off the debt and put it back into a fund, you would in effect be increasing the debt again to put money into the reserve.
The way the system is set up right now, the government has said that any deficit would be covered by a loan from the consolidated revenue fund and would be paid back. According to the officials who were here at the last meeting, that would be over time, not within a year. I say this just to clarify some things, because we asked the same questions, as we had similar concerns to you.
If we follow the rules of having a maximum increase of 15¢ per year, and everything else already in place, rest assured that these formulas, over time, would bring things back into balance. Sometimes, depending on the severity of a situation in a negative circumstance of a deficit, it could take some years to bring it back into balance, but overall it would come into balance. In the long term, the main point is that no money would be spent on EI or saved up from EI that didn't come from employers and employees in the first place.
Mr. Murphy actually made another comment. I just want to use one second of my time to address it. It was interesting when you referred to companies in Alberta paying the costs of moving employees, as opposed to the old way, which was that it came out of EI funds, apparently. I guess I would ask the question, why would it be wrong in your view that a company from Alberta would pay for someone to move, rather than employees in Nova Scotia, for example, who pay through EI dollars under the old system? It seems to me more rational that the company in Alberta would actually pay the cost of moving the employee, rather than a company somewhere else.