I'm not sure if we want “many, many documents”. The key is really to get the underpinning to the statements, to get a dimension. We need to be able to express ourselves in terms of recommendations in our report and say that it's not just an editorial conclusion, but substantive evidence with the support of various groups.
I want to ask especially if you can help direct us somehow. It may be any of the groups. The post-secondary education thing is absolutely bang on: if you get the grades, you should get to go. One way or another we have to find a way to make that happen.
There are so many elements for families and students to get benefits that are directed or prompted by post-secondary attendance. It can be RESPs, student loan scholarships, or loan forgiveness. There are so many elements that are possible, not to mention students' own incomes. For one-third of the year they are not at school; they must be doing something, or should be doing something.
We need the kind of analysis that really breaks it down to the reality of the average case, the average student. I can give you a terrible case in which the family is destitute and the student is living on welfare and stuff like this, and that generates big numbers, but we need it for the preponderance of students.
Do any of the other three presenters who talked about the post-secondary side have a concern with moving towards a needs-based focus for assisting post-secondary students?