I appreciate the challenge, I appreciate the difficulty, I appreciate the inter-regional dimension of this. When money is on the table in these things, if someone is getting more, someone is getting less. I appreciate all of that.
We have not come up with a specific recommendation in terms of the formula. We always say that it needs to be principles-based and justifiable. Right now, the current formula, based on the 1996 changes, is not justifiable.
I think you can make a really strong case that it should be per capita. I think you could make a really strong case that it should be based on percentage of unemployed—that's a needs-based formula. I think either one is fine. They wouldn't lead to huge changes. Obviously unemployment is higher in New Brunswick than it is in Saskatchewan, but the changes aren't really large. And so, whether it's based on the percentage of unemployed or is per capita-based, I think you'd get much closer to a fairer formula. And if people are trying to move that way, you can always have transition mechanisms that help ease the transitions along.
The real focus is to get training dollars to where they are most needed, so that we can improve our human capital and help support it. Right now, there are lots of people who can't get access to the major federal funding, that $1.95 billion that we all contribute to.