The only comment I would make is that the skill set need is very fluid. I think that's the biggest thing you need to come to grips with as you start looking at some sort of recommendation.
The technology need is evolving very rapidly. If you're looking backwards in terms of what the NOC code was and the specific shortage in a skill set, 18 months to two years down the road it will change dramatically in terms of how the companies need the technology. With regard to that part of the evolution of the skill set and how companies train people, to some degree you need to rely on this partnership of companies and academia as to what they need to train people for.
We need to provide the underlying framework to access the raw material. The raw material in this case is people, youth. It's retraining people who exist in the job and mining elsewhere. We need to find people to come here to set up these organizations and areas where they can start building the skill set underneath them.
I'll give you an example. If you put in a chief technology officer in Waterloo or Montreal or somewhere else, they will tend to build an organization of 200 technicians and technologists and create the jobs there. If you don't create the conditions for companies to have that job here, through either LMO delays or something else Morgan mentioned before, that job and the associated talent that goes with it will migrate somewhere else.
It is very fluid, and we need to rely on the private sector to do the right thing. The economics in this case is the ultimate equilibrium. They drive the reality. The framework needs to be there. You cannot look at a study that is two or three years old that says we only need electrical engineers. It will probably not be true, looking two years forward.