All right, sir, I will.
I think evidence shows that very expensive programs also have very large benefits, so if the training is very intense, very targeted, and you pay a lot of money for the best training providers, the results are equally high. The evidence I know of is from the U.S. I don't know of any best practice evidence from Canada.
I would say one more thing, though, and it's about the Canada job grant, in some sense. The federal government, I think their idea was the literature shows that employers know better how to train and get better results from training, maybe because they select workers who would have a better impact from training. But I think there is some evidence emerging, and we should pay attention to it, that if we properly measure government training, the one that LMDAs do, their impacts are pretty high as well. I think the literature has mismeasured the impacts of training mostly because of the occupations that are associated.
I'm with the provinces on this. It's not necessarily that the employers always know better. The governments do a decent job, on average. Again, I don't know best practices, but on average, the governments don't do as poorly as the literature had seemed to indicate in the past. It's not the fault of the government. It's just that the federal government is coming up with this idea. The literature seemed to think employer training is better, but maybe not. Maybe government training is as efficient.