Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Over the years, there has been a change in what unemployment insurance is called: it has become employment insurance. It has always seemed to me that this was no mere trifling change, and that it was meant to reflect a change in the culture of how the fund is used. I would like to know your opinion on that. It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that this is in fact what has happened. The fund has been used more and we have been told that it would be used for developing and promoting employment, particularly for training.
Other people who have spoken have also told us, here, that it should not be used as a form of social security, for example for parental leave or things like that. They added that distinctions had to be made and we had to go back to calling it "unemployment insurance", so that it would genuinely be used for unemployment insurance.
What do you think? Is this a direction we should be moving in?