The other reference here that I thought was interesting and has probably wider ramifications is this question of when someone loses their job, they get a severance package. There's a sense of the justice of that. They worked to earn that severance package, and it's available through perhaps their collective agreement or whatever, but in order to qualify for EI they have to spend that severance package first. Is that correct?
Why wasn't that looked at as something that could be changed? To me, that is fundamentally unfair, to ask people to take a bit of money that they might have used, for example, to make sure they could continue to pay the tuition fees for their children going to school and you're forcing them to now use that to actually give the government some reprieve in terms of what they are expected to provide, and to spend it before they get their EI.
Now you're saying that if some of the laid-off workers choose to invest all or part of the separation payment in their own training, that would be allowed. Could you explain that as well?