You see, when the minister appeared and when officials appeared, we asked about this. We asked who had looked at this bill. The minister continually said that because it's an optional program, they don't know what the costs are going to be, etc. We understand that, but whenever you introduce a program, there's a certain level of rigour that one expects to come with it. We weren't told that it was going to cost anything. We were told it would be self-sustaining. On the other hand, it never made sense that the minister could state with certainty that it would be self-sustaining when she also said that it was optional and they didn't know.
It's a difficult process. We all support, as you do, the idea of employment insurance for the self-employed. The question is whether this bill is the answer. It is being rushed? Was it put together quickly to get it out the door? Those are the things we've had to wrestle with. That's difficult.
Let me ask you this. Now that you're not the chief actuary but have all the knowledge inherent to having been that, do you think it makes sense that the funding should come from the EI fund, as opposed to the consolidated revenue fund?