Thank you, Mr. Brown.
I'm not going to get into the preamble part of your comments. I don't think that was intended for my response.
On the criteria, there are a couple of things. This is the first time we have put this kind of comprehensive applicant guide together. One of the things that accompanies a new program is a move to these more rigorous and objective criteria to be able to do the evaluation. As I said, we changed how the budget was allocated so we needed to have a way of assessing the projects. The criteria were developed based on our experience with the program and looking at the recommendations of the committee.
In past years, even the committee indicated to us that the way the proposals were being assessed wasn't sufficiently available to the people who were applying. We had an applicants' guide, but they weren't necessarily able to understand completely how the decisions were being taken. That's why so much effort went into actually putting together the 12 assessment criteria with the level of detail associated with each one--the points. For example, within the high unemployment rate there are one to 12 points, depending on what the youth unemployment rate is in that region.
The availability of accurate labour market data was an issue for the committee, so we tried to gear the assessment criteria to the best available labour market data for the folks who fell into this cohort.
We took the policy objectives, aligned the criteria against those policy objectives, and tried to do a weighting that looked at those three objectives: conditions in the area that might inhibit a student from being able to find a job, jobs that wouldn't otherwise be created without this kind of a program, and the high-quality work experience. That really was the logic and rationale behind the criteria.