Thank you.
I agree, the reserve is not big enough. I still maintain what I said to my committee colleagues earlier.
In 2005, this committee—which was comprised of different members, but which still had the same valiant clerks and advisors—had made unanimous recommendations. One of these recommendations was that there should be a reserve fund equivalent to one year's worth of benefits. At that time, the amount was between 15 and 16 billion dollars. I remember that the decision was unanimous. Based on the testimony we heard here, and on the way the fund and the situation had evolved since, I still maintain that position.
As for using the fund to pay for training or other social measures, we would have to study that option. Wasn't there some confusion when the name and the identification of the fund itself were changed from unemployment insurance to employment insurance? Some witnesses, including Mr. Hanson, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Atkinson, said that the fund should help people who had lost their jobs, namely those who were unemployed. The change to "employment insurance" was done for a reason. Today, the fund pays for training to help workers re-enter the labour market. I think we agree on that, but we will have to see whether that is the best way to go about it.
I find it interesting that Bill C-50 is compelling us to engage in this debate which, I believe, is timely. The debate is about how the money from the fund should be spent. So we are now engaged in a debate. People have referred to Denmark and its system called "flexisecurity". Under this approach, all income support contributions to the government go into the same pot. That's the opposite of what we have just been talking about. For instance, when someone is not eligible for employment insurance benefits, which are paid for by the federal government, welfare kicks in, which is paid for by the provinces.
Have you ever really thought about that? If so, what do you think about "flexisecurity"?