I understand what you are saying. I do not know whether this committee will repeat its recommendation, but in 2005 it recommended unanimously that the money that was diverted from the fund be returned to it. The idea was that this was a loan that could be paid back over 32 years. At the time, the amount of money that was diverted to other purposes was $46 billion, but it is now up to $54 billion.
Let us take your argument a little further. The government sells savings bonds, which we all buy from time to time. Somewhere along the line, could it say that this money has become theoretical or notional, because it has used it for other purposes? That is precisely what happened to the money that was supposed to be used for employment insurance. I would like you to ponder that argument.
My next question is to all our witnesses.
The government is keeping the commission to assume responsibility for access to employment insurance and benefits. The board would deal with premiums only. Do you think this is a good thing or do you think that a single entity should be in charge of everything?
Mr. Kelly-Gagnon said earlier that he was afraid of creating additional bureaucracy. Would it be preferable to assign the entire responsibility to the Employment Insurance Commission and to give it the appropriate number of commissioners to do the work? Should the commission be given full responsibilities, including a chief actuary, as will be assigned to the board? That is just a hypothetical suggestion. I am not saying that we are headed in that direction.