Yes, the program would be different in that, but we were very supportive of it because it did a number of things in a very innovative way. I think it addressed the issue of students, particularly, who would be disadvantaged from continuing their education potentially, by providing them with an income that they wouldn't otherwise have had, due to the impact of COVID-19. It also, therefore, benefited more and more non-profits and charities across the country with support and so forth they would otherwise not have had. In that sense we felt that it was an innovative approach to supporting our sector, which had also been very hard-hit by the impacts of COVID.
Also, it introduced students to some involvement with non-profits and community capacity building, and they would be paid something for it. We didn't see a disconnect or anything improper about that. It was the time, in our view, for some innovation like that.