You've asked several questions there, which are very interesting ones.
In terms of repatriating the past surpluses, again, I think my attitude is that what is past is past. On the notion of adding a bit more into the account in the transitional years—if there's a consensus that $2 billion, despite what the actuaries say, is a bit dicey and we need a little more—yes, whether we're talking about $1.5 billion or whatever is available out of a year-end surplus for a couple of years, I can see that kind of repatriation, if you want, as a transitional measure.
But when it comes to considering whether we should set up some kind of long-term mechanism to pay back $50 billion over the next generation, all that really boils down to is asking if that's the best use of that money in that year. In other words, if we're going to say governments in years ahead are going to spend $1.5 billion to put back into the EI fund to do things through the EI fund, that's money that's not being spent on increased transfers to the provinces for health care or education. It's money that's not being used for cuts in other federal taxes. It's money that's not being used for other federal programs.
In other words, any use of a new dollar going forward is a policy decision of the day. It's what is the best use of taxpayers' money, and I don't want to say automatically that for years to come that's going to be the best possible use.