Thank you for that, Mr. Julian. Unfortunately, I have a limited amount of time, so I have to move on to Mr. Sanger.
With respect to your second proposal of making it 360 hours for access to regular employment insurance benefits, it appears that one party in particular would prefer a long-tenured extension as opposed to more equity in the system, shall we say.
If you had a choice between 360 hours and the long-tenured extension, what would you choose?
Second, do you prefer the government's analysis of the cost or the Parliamentary Budget Officer's cost analysis, which seems remarkably parallel to your own?