To your first question, whether I read the IMF report, yes, I did. Yes, they commended us on our response. I've never suggested—I think you're dichotomizing this or turning it into a Manichaean argument of the light being on or the light being off. I have never said, and I don't think any Canadian has said, that we shouldn't have helped anybody. The issue has never been whether we should help anybody versus not help anybody. The question is targeting, I think, a more precise, surgical targeting. We're the only country—and I've looked at the OECD report on this and at the StatsCan report—that paid out 150% of the total job loss income. That violates, I believe, the principle of the unemployment insurance system that all Canadians have supported all the way back to Mackenzie King. That is that you don't get 150% of your loss. If you're making $1,000 a month, and you go into the unemployment insurance office, they don't give you $1,500. They give you a portion of your job-loss income.
We've paid out more, in percentage terms—so we're comparing normalized data and not absolute data—than has anybody else, and those resources are scarce. Those resources that were squandered with our paying more than we needed to could have been used to pay other people who needed more help.
The issue is not whether we should help people; the issue is can we not ensure that we provide the greatest amount of help to the people who suffer the most.