Okay.
Barbara mentioned the CLC's recommendations, and I was going to mention those. The difference between Caledon and the CLC and others is that although we agree with the improvements that CLC and other groups have recommended, over the long term we believe that's not enough. We have to create a new employment insurance program.
We would keep the current employment insurance, giving it a larger earnings replacement capacity, and we would add a new program, which would be an income-tested benefit--we're calling it a temporary income program--that would serve people who don't qualify for EI.
In other words, we would have now a two-part system. One part would be employment insurance, funded through premiums the way it is now, but it would be a stronger program. It would not have variable entrance requirements. There wouldn't be the perversion of the regional aspect to it. And there would be a new income-tested program, funded through general revenues--this again would be a federal one--that would help unemployed people who aren't able to qualify for an employment insurance program.
That's a fairly radical change. We're working on that. It's part of a larger architecture where we also replace welfare with new programs and get these programs working together both federally and provincially.
Thank you.