Mr. Speaker, on his question about whether I believe it ought to be actuarially sound, the answer is yes. I gave that answer in other words during my speech. I think I used the phrase that the fund ought to live within its means. I believe that. On his example, I can give him several like it. It is another example of how the UI scheme has been a disincentive to work.
I remember when I was a school superintendent in Newfoundland that I used to have people coming into my office on a number of occasions and saying: "You are the superintendent". "Yes". "How do you spell that?" "Yeah". "Have you got a job for me here?" "No". "You are also the president of the Green Bay Economic Development Association?" "Yeah". "How do you spell that?" "Yeah". "You have got another job up there, have you?" "No, no". "Now you are also involved with that park up on the highway". "Yeah". "How do you spell that?" "Yeah". They had just applied to three employers for employment. They could go back now and fill in their forms that they had approached three employers and they could not find work.
I also remember the day that a dear young former student of mine refused a job as a secretary. I knew why she was refusing it and I reported her. One of the reasons we have abuse has to do with the abusers. Another reason is the aiders and abettors, the employers who will not report the abuses.