I would think that my time has been stopped through most of this.
The one thing I do want to say, actually, is that it's fair to say we may have differences in the way we view the EI program and the benefits and the way the program should be run—maybe, I'm not sure—but the reality is that this bill has nothing to do with those differences. All this bill has to do with is transparency and accountability.
I've said before that if the Bloc ever came to be the federal government—I'm not sure how that would happen—or if the NDP were the federal government, they could make changes to programs and benefits that would increase them as much as they would like to increase them, and this bill would have no impact on their ability to do that. What this bill does is say that money collected for EI should be spent on EI, plain and simple. It shouldn't be spent on things like the gun registry, or the sponsorship program, or a variety of government programs that might be there; it should be spent on EI. It should be spent on workers and helping workers.
Mr. Blakely, I just want to clarify something, because you suggested in your last statement, in answer to a question, that there was no wording about a backstop. But in clause 131 it says:
If amounts credited to the Employment Insurance Account after December 31, 2008, and the amount of the Board's reserve referred to in subsection 66(4), are not sufficient for the payment of amounts authorized to be charged to that Account after that day, the Minister of Finance, when requested by the Minister, may authorize the advance to the Account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of an amount sufficient to make the payment.