Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the organizations who have testified and assure them that their testimony will be very useful as we continue our work.
For the information of our guests, this committee unanimously recommended, in December 2004, that the amounts that had been siphoned out of the fund be returned — and it was indeed unanimous — at the rate of $1.5 billion per year, and that that amount be considered to be a loan on the same basis as money borrowed by the Canadian government on the financial market, that is, at the appropriate interest rates.
I am still persuaded that this is the approach to take in order to do justice to the people to whom that money belongs. Since we started looking at this question, there has been a discordant note in the testimony. Overall, the witnesses have been relatively reserved and critical of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. You have stated a number of opinions, but there is one that is quite pointed.
MASSE said that the bill must not be passed. Apart from the philosophical question, in practical terms, I would like to know why your comment is so pointed. We understand that the other organizations are in favour of the bill, because in their minds it represents a step forward. A separate account is being created that will be used, from now on, only for the purposes of employment insurance, with the exception, of course, of the famous reserve, which will continue to be part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and will have to be used strictly for reducing premiums. We agree with you on that and we will come back to it.
Apart from the philosophical question, why do you not consider creating an independent account that will be used only for employment insurance to be a good thing?