As you say, we are not expressing the same opinion. Under the previous legislation, rates had to be established on the basis of an economic cycle in order to ensure stability, which meant taking into account any accumulated surpluses. For five or six years running, we expressed concerns about the fact that the surplus exceeded the amount recommended by the Chief Actuary, and the Government was unable to justify that additional surplus.
In 2005, the legislation was amended. That amendment meant that surpluses are no longer taken into account for the purposes of rate setting. It is considered that every year, the account must be self-funding--in other words, that the premiums paid by employers and employees should be roughly equivalent to the amount paid out in benefits.
Page 4.17 of the English version presents detailed information with respect to revenues and expenditures for the Employment Insurance Account. The amount of $1.3 billion reflects interest credited to the account. That is not actual money; rather, these are book entries. That amount is not taken into account as regards self-financing. There will always be a surplus that is at least equal to the amount of interest, in a self-financing scenario. This year, the surplus is a little higher.
Normally, we would still expect there to be surpluses, albeit not as large as the ones we've seen in the past. Of course, if there were a surplus of $10 or $15 billion, we would have to say that the legislation is not being complied with, because revenues from the Fund would exceed the amount paid out in benefits in the course of the year.