Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The unions and the employees that testified before the committee agreed that the creation of the board was a step in the right direction and that the money from the surplus had been diverted and should not have been used for that purpose. The minister himself acknowledged that. As Mr. Whyte said earlier, this is virtually a tax on employment.
You also told the committee something on which there seems to be a consensus, with the exception of one discordant note: the $2 billion reserve isn't enough and the diverted funds should first be used to constitute the reserve. Perhaps you read the December 2004 and February 2005 report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which contained 28 recommendations. Eight of those 28 recommendations were unanimous. The purpose of one of those recommendations was to return the diverted funds to the fund at a rate of $1.5 billion a year so as not to affect the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Why $1.5 billion a year? Because that represents 50% of the Canadian government's usual reserve for contingencies, which is never used. This $50 billion must be recognized as a loan, in the same way as when the Canadian government borrows in the financial markets.
What do you think of that? Should we continue in this direction? What you're saying makes me think that perhaps we should continue along this path. The employment question must also be considered, which I'm not sure about, but I'm prepared to listen to suggestions. One of the suggestions is that we draw on Ireland's model and put a flexible security system in place. I don't know whether you understand. In other words, it was suggested to us that we use part of that money to train people so that they can redirect their careers and enter the labour market.
Have you thought about that question? What do you think, Mr. Stewart-Patterson?