Human Resources Committee on May 28th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Pursuant to the orders of reference of April 11 and May 26, 2020, the committee is resuming its study of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Today's meeting is taking place via video conference, and the proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entire committee. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mike.

Before I get started, I would like to remind everyone, and especially our witnesses, to please use the language channel of the language they are speaking. If you are going to switch back and forth from English to French, French to English, you also need to switch the channel before switching languages.

I would now like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. With us today, appearing as an individual, we have Mohammad Keyhani, associate professor, entrepreneurship and strategy, at the University of Calgary. From Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, we have Mathew Wilson, senior vice-president, policy and government relations.

Professor Keyhani, please proceed with your opening remarks. You have 10 minutes.

[Dr. Mohammad Keyhani, Associate Professor, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Hello. Thank you for inviting me here today. It is an honour to be speaking to members of Parliament and the broader Canadian public.

My name is Mohammad Keyhani and I am a professor of entrepreneurship and business strategy at the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary. I want to highlight and make recommendations on two issues today: digital skills and international students.

In the past several years, I have focused my teaching and research efforts on digital technologies for the next generation of entrepreneurs. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of how we launch and operate new and small businesses. An entrepreneur today has to know what a Slack channel, a growth funnel, a Zapier zap or an API is, or else they will quickly fall behind the global competition.

Canada knows that it has a digital divide problem. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the importance of digital skills and the digital economy. I want to point out that the Canada training credit program can be used for the purpose of responding to the sudden increase in demand for digital skills due to COVID-19. I want to encourage all working-age Canadians to take advantage of the Canada training credit to improve their digital skills, and as 2020 is the first year this credit is available, it can be leveraged by Canadians to respond to the new normal.

This program was inspired partly by Singapore's SkillsFuture program. In response to COVID-19, Singapore has doubled their training credits this year, and I recommend that Canada also consider increasing this, especially if it can be used for digital skills. This would also help to highlight the Canada training credit program once again for Canadians who may not be aware of it or may have forgotten about it in the midst of COVID-19.

That concludes my first recommendation.

To go on to my second point, I want to argue that international students should be covered by the CESB.

The COVID-19 crisis has prompted researchers and entrepreneurs across Canada to focus their efforts on coming up with solutions to the various issues around the pandemic. I have been fortunate to be able to join research teams in the University of Calgary and help them commercialize their COVID-19 response technologies.

One of these start-ups has been able to receive Health Canada authorization to produce a three-D printable nasopharyngeal swab to address the shortage of such swabs in Canada. Another start-up has been able to apply leading-edge microfluidic technology to create test kits for COVID-19 virus and immune response diagnostics. This technology has been supported by a generous CIHR grant from the government.

I am proud that researchers in Canada, right here in the University of Calgary, have the capabilities to develop these technologies. It has been truly inspiring to work with these tireless researchers, who get up early in the morning every day—including most weekends—to go to the lab and stay there long into the night while the country is in lockdown.

I want to highlight an interesting fact about these research teams that I've been working with. Most of them are international students. Of the few who aren't international students, most of them came to Canada initially as international students and eventually gained Canadian permanent residency.

After the tragic incident earlier this year when a Ukrainian flight was shot down in Iran, I was asked by two journalists how so many brilliant scientific minds could be on one flight. To me, this was an indication that perhaps we as a country do not fully grasp the extent to which international students and scholars are contributing to Canada.

In fact, Professor Mojgan Daneshmand of the University of Alberta, who died on that flight, had working relationships with our team and would likely be contributing to our COVID-19 diagnostics project today if she were alive. She came to Canada as an international student 20 years ago.

Economically, it is estimated that international students contribute $22 billion annually to the Canadian economy, and their presence here fuels 170,000 jobs. Canada is competing with other countries globally to attract international students. Many of them choose Canada not just because of the quality of education, but also because of its reputation as a multicultural and tolerant society.

Many people, including many higher education professionals and administrators, have been disappointed by the government's decision to exclude international students from the Canada emergency student benefit. There are about 640,000 international students in Canada, and many of them do not need the CESB because they have funding support from scholarships or other institutions, but many of them do need the CESB and are finding themselves in financial stress. These international students have multiple disadvantages to deal with compared with most Canadian students.

First, they pay tuition fees that are about three times higher than Canadian students. Second, they typically have no family here in Canada to rely on and no place they can go to stay with their family to avoid paying rent now that everything is online. Third, their family back home is finding it difficult to support them financially because many of them have also been impacted by COVID-19. Fourth, many of the kinds of jobs these students took to support their studies in Canada are the kinds of jobs that are hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Canada is a caring country, but if we fail to take care of our international student population now, it may impact our reputation in the global race to attract international students in the future. Our universities depend heavily on international students as the main driver of growth in our higher education sector in the past decade. For this reason, I recommend that the Government of Canada consider including international students, at least those who don't have tuition waivers, scholarships or other significant financial support, in the CESB program.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Professor Keyhani.

Next we have Mr. Wilson from Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.

You have 10 minutes, Mr. Wilson.

[Mathew Wilson, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's discussion. It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of Canada's 90,000 manufacturers and exporters, and our association's 2,500 direct members to discuss COVID-19 in Canada's manufacturing sector.

Today, I will stress the importance of the existing wage subsidy program, the need for expanded programs to support the full restart of industry, and the requirement for a national manufacturing strategy that contains a skills component.

CME's membership covers all sizes of companies, all regions of the country, and all industrial sectors. From the early days of this crisis we've been working with our members and governments to increase the manufacture and supply of critical PPE and health care technologies needed in the response. We have also been educating and informing manufacturers on the latest developments in the crisis, including on how to access government supports and how to protect their employees and their supply chains. We have been working to understand the impact on our sector and have been advocating policy, regulatory and program supports for our sector from all levels of government.

Throughout this crisis the role and importance of Canada's manufacturing sector has never been clearer or as much discussed. Hundreds if not thousands of manufacturers have switched their production to support the making of critical PPE, such as masks, face shields and gowns, as well as ventilators. Many in our sector are aggressively working on developing better tests and a vaccine for COVID-19.

Despite the current challenging climate, unlike in other sectors, most segments of manufacturing have been able to continue to operate throughout, albeit at much lower production levels. Through the first six weeks of the crisis—through to the end of April roughly—output dropped by nearly 10 per cent and actual hours worked declined by 30%. Worse, roughly 300,000 Canadians of the 1.7 million directly employed by our sector lost their jobs.

Those job losses were heavily concentrated in sectors where consumer demand plummeted, namely automotive, aerospace and energy-related sectors. Were it not for the actions of the federal government, those numbers would have been much, much worse, and because of those actions the numbers are beginning to get better now.

The most important action taken has been the wage subsidy program. When CME first began calling for the CEWS, we had in mind that companies could maintain operations and their payrolls so they would be in a stronger position from which to recover coming out of this crisis. We believe it is achieving these results.

In a recent survey of our members, nearly 85 per cent fully supported government actions, with nearly 55 per cent stating that they were using the CEWS specifically—far and away the most used program—with tax deferrals coming in at a distant second with roughly 30 per cent use.

The heavy use of this program can be linked back to the reality that manufacturing can continue to operate, but with significantly reduced volumes and sales. Sustaining their workforce would have been impossible without the wage subsidy given the high overhead costs of maintaining manufacturing operations.

Today, we are hearing from our members who are rehiring thousands of Canadians as they look to restart their production. By our count, CEWS has been a massive success. This does not mean, however, that the program is without flaws. There are two big challenges that our members have noted, which I want to raise.

First, companies who sell to interrelated parties—such as a subsidiary selling to a parent company—and second, companies who acquired a second company are restricted from using the program. We are working with finance officials on these restrictions and hope a solution will come soon.

Outside of existing program challenges, it is important to note how eager companies are to get off the subsidy program and return to normal operations. Many companies are planning for an exit from the support as soon as the original June program elimination date is reached. Those companies should be applauded. Unfortunately, many other companies will be reliant on the program beyond this date due to depressed economic conditions.

The extension of the program to the end of August was welcome news, but more will need to be done. It is likely that the program will need to be extended beyond this date; however, this time there should be a timed and revenue-based phase-out plan included. More specifically, we believe that the program should be extended to January 2021; the amount of the subsidy should be reduced in lockstep with an expected improvement in company revenues; and the government should lower the revenue-loss threshold for qualification from the current 30% back toward the original 15% before it is eliminated altogether. This extended and smoother transition would allow companies time to adjust and would not push them off a revenue-support cliff thereby potentially causing them and their employees further harm.

There are two other areas I'll mention before closing: the need for additional support for industry in dealing with the new health and safety guidelines, and the importance of skills development as part of a manufacturing strategy.

First, as industry begins to fully ramp up production, there are significant additional costs that will be borne by companies, yet revenues and output will not match historical norms. Companies will be investing in training staff in operational requirements, providing PPE in much greater quantities to staff and installing protective barriers and other physical distancing tools. Government should introduce some direct support programs to offset these costs.

Second, as governments look to answer the call to create a national industrial strategy that focuses on growth, investment and innovation in manufacturing, a critical component of that strategy must be human capital. While people are among Canada’s greatest assets, the lack of the right skilled workers and labour in general has become a major obstacle to the growth of our sector in Canada. The shortages are widespread across the country, across all job types and across types and sizes of companies. If companies cannot get the right skills, they cannot leverage the latest technologies, they cannot innovate and they cannot invest and grow. As part of their industrial strategy, governments need to include a skills strategy that looks to get more youth into the sector, to help companies upskill their existing workforce and to allow companies to attract the best and brightest from around the world.

Thank you again for inviting me to participate today. I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

We're going to begin with rounds of questions, starting with Ms. Kusie for six minutes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor Keyhani, it's good to see you after meeting you in San Jose, almost two years ago now. As well, I was very interested in your comments in a recent discussion about Canada going forward into the world after this pandemic.

In your opinion, what new trends do you think we will see emerge in the labour force as a result of the COVID-19 working environment, please?

[Dr. Mohammad Keyhani]

Thank you, Ms. Kusie. It's an honour to see you again.

In terms of trends in the labour force, I think it's clear that digital skills are going to be very important going forward. Everybody knew these were was going to be important, but the COVID-19 pandemic suddenly pushed this trend by leaps and bounds.

Sometimes when we talk about digital skills, people immediately think about coding skills and computer science degrees and that sort of thing, but I think we need to have a broader view. I train my students in the university and entrepreneurs in using the different digital technologies to improve their businesses. It is surprising, especially in the past decade or so, how many of these technologies that previously required some sort of coding knowledge and programming skills no longer do. It's just a matter of using drag and drop tools, which anybody can use and learn, and a matter of playing around and learning a lot of these tools. But the entry barriers to learning them are much lower. A lot of them don't require computer science degrees anymore, and this trend is going to increase in the future. It's a matter of general digital literacy, an openness to trying new things and an awareness of how the landscape of tools available is changing. I think that's going to be an important trend down the road.

Automation is going to play an important role. There's been an estimate that one in 10 jobs in the OECD countries is in danger of automation very soon. But I think, as with previous waves of technology that have displaced other technologies in the past, a lot of new opportunities will be created. We have to train our students even before the higher education level, at elementary schools and high schools, to not only learn the available tools, but also to learn to learn and to be able to play around and learn with new tools as they become available. A lot of the tools they will need when they grow up and get into the job market don't even exist right now. We have to make sure that once they get there, they have the skills to learn them very quickly.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's excellent. Thank you very much.

Coming from Global Affairs prior to being in the House of Commons, I believe a global reset will happen with everything from diplomatic relations to supply chains. I believe the skills you've made reference to play will play significant role in what Canada's role in the new world economy will be in the future.

What could the Government of Canada do specifically in an effort to prepare our workforce, in particular young people in our workforce, for this new world economy post-COVID-19?

[Dr. Mohammad Keyhani]

I think the incorporation of various digital skills and technical skills into the learning curriculum at lower learning levels will be a good step. I'm not completely on top of the extent to which this has already happened. I know that, up to a few years ago, a lot of schools were voluntarily incorporating some of this material and some of this digital skills training into their programs, but it wasn't in the official programs that they were required to follow. So, that will be an important factor.

An opportunity like the Canada training credit that I was referring to in my opening remarks is useful, although it's not a perfect solution because people have to wait until the end of the year when they file their tax returns before they can get their expenditures reimbursed. A lot of people may not necessarily use those credits for the kinds of skills that we think are necessary to jump into the future, so there could be potential modifications or facilities around that program that would encourage people to move particularly towards digital skills training or upskilling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Professor.

Thank you, Ms. Kusie.

Next we'll go to Mr. Turnbull for six minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate their opening remarks.

Mr. Wilson, I'm going to start with you and ask you a couple of questions. Then I have a couple for Mr. Keyhani as well, and hopefully we'll get to those.

Mr. Wilson, I know that your CEO at CME has mentioned how many of your members are likely to apply for the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, and then you mentioned in your opening remarks a survey that you did where you said it's about 85%. That's really good to hear. We also heard expert testimony earlier this week from Professor Kevin Milligan from the University of British Columbia, who said, “I do hope that we will start to see people maintain their income...through the wage subsidy rather than the emergency response benefit because the wage subsidy is a way to rebuild the economy.” I think that is a really important point.

Looking forward, do you agree that the wage subsidy will help your members retain and re-engage their employees, helping them transition back to the workplace?

[Mathew Wilson]

Absolutely. I'll just clarify the numbers. About 85% of companies said that they fully supported the government action across the board on all the measures they've taken, and that's federal and provincial. About 55% of our members said that they used the wage subsidy program, which is a substantial number of companies, so it has broad use in the manufacturing sector.

The CERB program, though, has been a very different type of program. We were worried at the very beginning about the potential distortion effect that that program could have in our sector. I won't talk about other sectors that were much harder hit by COVID-19 than we were. However, what we were worried about was that if companies don't retain the relationship with their employees, it becomes a lot harder for them to restart. Before the wage subsidy program was announced, before the CERB program was announced, we were talking to officials and saying, “Do not do an EI-type system”, which is what it turned out to be. “How about a direct wage subsidy like we saw in Europe and other parts of the world?” That would maintain that relationship; the companies already have payroll; and it's really easy to handle it. I think the government recognized pretty quickly when the CERB program was put into place that it caused, frankly, a pretty significant number of layoffs across all industries. The government immediately went to a wage subsidy program, which actually caused a lot of our members to recall furloughed employees after only a week or so. I think it would have worked immediately.

Secondarily, it is working. We had a conversation on Monday with Minister Morneau and with several companies. Fiat Chrysler, for example, was one of them, and it specifically said that it started off operations at all three of its Canadian plants on one shift because of the wage subsidy and that it would be moving to two shifts.

That's just one specific example and one statement just this week, but we're aware of many companies that are doing that because it's there. If the wage subsidy isn't there, they won't be recalling those people, and frankly, many companies probably would shut their doors.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks for that, I really appreciate it. It's great feedback for us, and I really appreciated your comments about how to maybe phase out the wage subsidy in a gradual fashion.

I'm going to talk a bit about the made-in-Canada manufacturing solution, and COVID-19 has certainly highlighted just how important domestic capacity is for our supply chains and manufacturing sector. I know that personal protective equipment, test kits and ventilators have obviously been in high demand, and global supply chains have been stressed, to say the least, which again highlights the need for domestic capacity. I know that Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters have long been champions of increasing the capacity of our domestic manufacturing sector.

What steps has the federal government taken so far that have been helpful in realizing a made-in-Canada manufacturing solution?

[Mathew Wilson]

The government has undertake some short-term measures to try to stand up domestic supply chains, leveraging investment support programs, for example, to help companies retool and scale up production of PPE, but those are really short-term measures to deal with the short-term critical nature of the supply.

There needs to be a much longer-term strategy, and this isn't an overnight thing. You've mentioned that we've been talking about this for a long time. I've been before this committee several times in several different iterations over the years talking about this as well. It's critical that we have a big industrial strategy for Canada that includes skills and a made-in-Canada component. So much of it, though, is driven by technology, as Ms. Kusie was talking about earlier, and how we can improve our domestic competitiveness to be able to manufacture for any type of crisis in the future.

If we focus just on things like not having enough N95 masks for this crisis and how we can make more of them, what happens if the next crisis isn't about N95 masks? We need to have a domestic manufacturing capability that can respond to any crisis. We need better technology, we need more investment and we need more capability. Maybe more importantly than anything else, we need to understand what we make in Canada and what those companies can do.

The problem in standing up the domestic supply chain for the PPE was two-fold. First, we don't know what our capacities and capabilities are in manufacturing in the country; no one tracks that type of thing. We know roughly how many people work in chemical manufacturing or auto manufacturing, but knowing what type of chemicals and what they could be transitioned into is very different from knowing that these companies make chemicals in the first place, as an example. We need to understand that.

Second, we need to have much stronger procurement rules both in terms of buy Canada so that we're supporting domestic production and innovation, and second, that it be centralized and coordinated so that a company isn't supplying a local hospital if it is supplying, say, a regional, national or provincial health care network.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Ms. Chabot, you have six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would like to thank the witnesses. I would like to ask Mr. Wilson a question.

Mr. Wilson, you appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance today. In your testimony, you seemed to say that the maintenance of activities was largely due to programs such as the emergency wage subsidy.

However, you also talked about the decline in some sectors, which could be as much as 13%. You also said that it may take until 2022 before everything returns to normal.

How do you see the solutions that have been proposed?

Are solutions such as the emergency wage subsidy, solutions that have worked in the short term but will not work in the medium term?

[Mathew Wilson]

I apologize; it was hard to hear everything that was coming through. I will do my best to answer your question.

I think what I understand from the question, though, is what type of transition do we need? How do we look longer term if we're not expecting a full recovery—economic recovery, manufacturing recovery—for almost two years? What do we need to do?

We really do need a multi-staged approach. The approach to date has been about immediate crisis containment to make sure that we have an economy to go back to after this is over and when things restart. Whether that's being able to go out to lunch at a restaurant or it's manufacturing or something like that, we need that baseline industry there, and the response has been about that.

The second phase, though, really needs to be how we start to get recovery. A big part of the immediate recovery will be about boosting consumer spending. Consumers account for 60% of the domestic economy. If they're not spending money because they're uncertain about their economic future, or they're unwilling to go out of their houses because they're afraid they're going to get sick, that's a huge problem. We need to think about those kinds of medium-term transitions.

In the the slightly longer term, we're calling on governments to look at actions that will support longer-term economic growth, like infrastructure spending, for example. That will not only boost short-term demand for products, but also longer-term growth in the economy. Trade infrastructure is a great example. Our ports, rail lines and pipelines are clogged, and we can't get goods to market or into the country in a lot of cases to feed manufacturing. Those things will be important medium-term actions.

In the longer term is where you need to have the bigger industrial strategy. That's going to look at how we can leverage technology, for example, to reshape industry and society to take advantage of all the opportunities.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

I'd now like to talk about skilled jobs.

You mentioned innovation through human capital, human resources. In another life, I sat on the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail with the manufacturing sector. These questions are important, but does the solution not also come from those who are already employed, not just those who are in school? In-house training would therefore be important.

Do you think wages in the sector are competitive enough to encourage people to work?

[Mathew Wilson]

Again, I apologize if this isn't the full answer.

I would say there are two parts to this answer. One is that technology and innovation are rapidly changing how manufacturers operate. You understand that, as do most members of the committee.

Our workforce, in a lot of ways, is not keeping up with that. We've been a long-term proponent of much greater support for companies to do in-house training. Things like work-integrated learning programs, which started under the last government, were expanded under this government. They are really, really important to tie that connection between education, students' theoretical knowledge, and the on-the-ground practical knowledge that people are getting, whether they're students or they've been on the job for 30 years. Technology is changing, and we need to support those companies in the transition towards technologies so they can be more competitive.

Most importantly, we need to support those workers to make sure they can take on the new jobs and the new technologies that are reshaping manufacturing in all parts of our society.

I hope that answers your question.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I would add that, in the recovery, there will have to be a transition in the industrial world, and workers will play a very important role. In the workplace, knowledge and training will have to be updated, and skills will have to be upgraded.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Next we have Ms. Kwan, for six minutes, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your presentations.

Mr. Wilson, I just want to follow up on the whole issue around re-entry.

I really like the idea and the proposal you made about gradual support, if you will, of wage subsidies. Some of the businesses today, though, are already calling for that, even so that they can qualify for the wage subsidy. Some have missed qualifying by just a hair.

Would you support this kind of call as well, both in getting into the wage subsidy at this point as well as exiting the program?

[Mathew Wilson]

Yes. Most of our companies that we talk to do qualify. Their production was down 30% to 40%, and their sales were down so much. I'm not sure about other sectors of the economy, but 30% a “revenue cliff” that I and others have called it is a substantial problem that probably should be softened. Early on we called for 15% in the first month, and we're happy to see that. So, yes, that's potentially something we could look at, certainly on the way out of this.

If you have it at 30% and you leave it there, and you don't soften it or wind it back down maybe towards 15% of revenues or something like that, it's going to have a big impact, because companies won't be able to operate if you have that 30% number stuck in there. We're suggesting that it not be kept at a 75% subsidy if you have, say, a 20% decline in revenue. Maybe it should be 50% support if there's been a 20% decline in revenue, or something like that. But, certainly, we need some type of tied-together formula that would be pretty simple to administer for government and for business, and that recognizes and supports growth in revenue and that transition off.

Frankly, you could start introducing that today. There's no reason you couldn't soften those numbers, but have a lower subsidy. Instead of just having it at 30% and 75%, maybe have it at 20% and 50%. I'm just putting out those numbers, but you could have some sort of a different scale on it that as well. So, yes, I think we would support something like that, and certainly on the way out, it's going to have to be there.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think that would make a difference. The amount of subsidy would be proportional to the amount of revenue loss so you can tie the two things together as a scale. That's good to hear.

The other thing I'm hearing from the small business community in my own area, although not in the manufacturing sector—and I think all of the businesses will be critical for our recovery—is that some people are starting to have problems accessing plexiglass, for example. As we're talking about re-entry, you need to create different workstations and so on, but people can't access that material in addition to personal protective equipment. I wonder if you can comment on that issue.

[Mathew Wilson]

It's a huge issue. We use a lot of the same equipment in manufacturing that hospitals use. The N95 mask is a good example, and also various types of face shields and other things. In some cases, they don't have to be medical quality, and so they can be a little easier to obtain, but it's still a huge problem across the board.

We've partnered with a group called the Rapid Response Platform, RRP, are are helping thousands of companies every day to make these types of connections. We don't need big government programs to do this. The private sector stepped up and done it, and it's all free. I would encourage people to take a look at that. We have no gain from whatsoever. We're promoting it to our members to use, because we were getting those questions.

Just through our own informal network, we were manually matching companies when we knew one company had stuff and someone didn't. But this is a much bigger public platform, and it's been very helpful. As I said, yesterday I think I heard the number was that somewhere around 2,500 companies had made masks in one day alone, and so it's working really well for the private sector.