Thank you very much.
I think the conversation is interesting, and we've moved a little into the issue of the cost of poverty. We knew some time ago that governments fighting poverty is not an issue of charity; it's an issue of justice. More and more we can see that it's also an issue of investments, as Tim talked about.
Canadians are quite proud of the social infrastructure of Canada, but it's not as robust as it could be. On early learning and child care, we were in last place in the OECD nations. On employment insurance, this is not a recession-tested system. In fact, the United States has now raced ahead of us in the way they deal with unemployment benefits.
Our medical system has holes, particularly in Nova Scotia, where home care and care for those who need ongoing assistance--whether it's episodic, consistent, or chronic--is a problem.
On the cost of poverty, I don't think it's a question of whether we can afford to address poverty; it's a question of whether we can afford not to address poverty. So it's both a social issue and an economic issue.
I think Tim mentioned stimulus. The most effective stimulus, if the purpose is to put money into the economy so it has a rebound effect, is to put it into people who need help. If Halifax is going to build a new convention centre with the stimulus money they get, we'll just be moving skilled trades people from one job to another. We won't be putting money into the hands of people who could learn and do better through the process. It's the same with employment insurance.
I wonder if anybody has a specific thought on a really effective way to use stimulus money to invest in people.