I absolutely agree with what was said. The concern here is that if we enter an economic downturn and the premium revenues are not generating enough revenue to pay for benefits and the approved training, what is going to happen?
If you go to proposed subsection 80(1) of this bill, the way I read it, it says that if expenditures under the EI program--that would be for regular benefits, parental benefits, and training, part II expenditures--exceed the revenues, the minister “may authorize” an advance to the new board to pay for the program. I think that is a dilution of the current understanding, which is that the EI statute provides eligibility for benefits. It provides for active measures. And that “may” should read “shall”, especially with a $54 billion surplus.