Thank you.
I actually want to follow up on the questions that Mr. Trost initiated here, because I think they're important questions. I think that some of the unspoken rationale for moving in this direction is in fact to try to sort out who pays for what and what really fits and what doesn't.
I actually would like to throw a question to our economist here, who hasn't had a chance to speak yet this morning.
There are economists who will put together a whole package of things that fit into that, trying to keep industry stable, trying to protect workplaces so that there are jobs, and training, and bridging pensions for older workers to bring new workers in, to reduce costs.
Mr. Morrison will remember Algoma Steel in the early nineties. When we restructured, there was a lot of money put into pensions for older workers to move them on, because they were the more costly end of the employment scheme, and into bringing new workers in to give new people a chance. Then with the new workers, there was money put into training so that they could be brought up to speed more quickly as they were reinvesting in new technology, and that kind of thing.
There's a whole host of things that you can do, which in some circles would be referred to as more social. You get closer to the edge when you get into, for instance, supporting people who leave the workplace because they have children. It may be seen as social if you support them in that period of time, as opposed to making sure that they're looked after and their families are looked after, so that when they come back to work they are actually happy workers and productive workers--not to speak of the importance of making sure children get a good early start in life with parents around, and early learning, and childhood, and that kind of thing.
Mr. Chassin, where would you draw the line there in terms of what should be paid for by this fund and what shouldn't be paid for by this fund?
