Again, I think the proposal you're referring to was one from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, and we have been working with them.
Although our two suggestions are nuanced a little differently, I think we're saying the same thing. Our program would say that those employers that do train and worry about having their employees poached are at least going to get some form of recognition through an EI-type program. We think that's a good system. After all, the system was changed from unemployment insurance to employment insurance, and what better way to ensure employment than to use that fund to skill workers so that they themselves can prevent those periods of unemployment?
In terms of the question about China, though, I think that's a good question. Our trade deficit with China from 2002 to 2005 has moved from $12 billion to $22 billion. We shouldn't be constrained or hampered by trying to enforce or check all the cargo coming in; I think the responsibility is China's, and the fact that China doesn't enforce those rules, doesn't enforce environmental rules, and doesn't have the same kinds of environmental checks it would take to build a dam or a nuclear power plant is de facto a subsidy. Yet in our trading agreements we don't consider those measures subsidization. When we have to compete against different rules like that, we are at a disadvantage. That's the only rub we have against trade deals.
We are a trading nation. We think trade is good, but it has to be on a level playing field with equal rules. When you have a country that allows people to violate patent protections and copyright and get away with it, it's not our problem, it's theirs, and we should deal with it through sanctions, not through us having to put more enforcement mechanisms in place to check their bad behaviour.