I'll just mention that the chamber has two focuses. When you think about all the things the federal government can spend money on, there's a great wide list, and the demand on government is ferocious from so many sources. Our focus is on productivity and the standard of living. We have been recommending that we start thinking about targeting spending a lot more than we have. The two things we've settled on—for a variety of reasons, but they're basically dealt with by talking about productivity and standard of living—are infrastructure and education.
Education has a great many components. We zeroed in a little on post-secondary education for some specific reasons related to what it can do for the economy, but education, nonetheless, made our “top two” list of things for government to do.
When you come to deciding how you're going to do this, my beef with EI, not to prolong the point, is to say that it is clearly not the only vehicle you should be thinking about here. That's a program that has a purpose. If you want to design a program—and I don't disagree with Shirley at all in thinking about something a bit more globally—education and training, if they're going to have the priority they should have, should be thought about other than as a quick add-on to some other program that has an entirely different purpose. That's the context within which I was coming at the issue.