Sure. Why we ended up developing the labour market system was due likely to the same issues that a number of your witnesses have talked about. It's just a huge, huge gap. To try to plan so people can end up with very successful careers, we're looking at how to actually sustain a very good engineering profession. You need to understand where the gaps are, and we find our labour market study is very regional and very discipline-specific. So with engineering, depending on how you want to quantify it—there are some 75 different disciplines now, and various different parts of the country require different parts of engineering—as you try to engage young people to see engineering as an attractive career, you want to be able to demonstrate that there are lots of possibilities.
One of the features we include, as Mr. Mendelsohn talked about with some of the best practices that we actually use, is confirmation through focus groups of employers. We do our statistical analysis and then we bring in focus groups of employers to ask whether this makes sense—we do that regionally. And so we go across the country and we ask whether all those things make sense, as we publish those types of features. Our target is really to have that continuum, so that not only do we know what we should be training at our universities, but we think it will also help with the immigration systems, particularly as we move to the expression of interest system, and any of the federal skilled worker programs and those types of programs. We need very good labour market data that looks to the future, data that's not five years old and reflecting what the labour market looked like five years ago. What does it look like in five years from now or ten years?