Very quickly, around the transparency and accountability issues, I'm sensitive to the point being made that it has been most useful to speak to how the legislation reflects the intent of the government.
I think there was a set of motivations in developing this legislation that ought to be commended in terms of the past. I think the legislation reflects an extremely strong role by the Department of Finance moving forward, even over this new and so-called independent fund and commission.
In terms of what this board does, the economic assumptions that they're allowed to take into account in setting the premium rate are those from the Department of Finance. They're not really allowed an independent role around judging the economic situation we're in.
As I said, in proposed subsection 80(1).... I mean, you stated--and you know that Minister Flaherty has said this as well--the Government of Canada stands there to backstop the EI account, so why do we have a bill that says it “may” backstop the EI account? It's basically because the Department of Finance is allergic to having “shall” in a statute that would drive spending.
If we're talking about transparency, to the extent that I believe the government's intentions are what they are, I don't think they're fully reflected in this legislation. I hope the committee would satisfy itself on some of those concerns that are being raised. Is the government really backstopping this new account? How independent a role does it really have?