Thank you, Graham.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
Indeed, the application this year does require more demonstration from the employer around the quality of the work experience. For example, we ask employers to not just tell us that there's a mentoring plan but to explain what the mentoring plan is for the student, and what the tools are that they have in place to ensure that the work environment is free of harassment and discrimination. Where there are issues around things like hazardous substances, potentially, in the workplace, again, the employer is demonstrating that to us, and that is around the focus on the quality at work description.
Those MPs who have provided us helpful feedback on local priorities, or indeed, upcoming potential projects that could be funded, would note that this year—and this is all transparent in the application—it makes it clear that priority is being given for quality jobs. The learning opportunities and the salary being offered to the student are those sorts of factors that are considered.
The second principal criterion.... Again, the points are clear in the application form itself around respecting national priorities. There is everything from employment opportunities in the skilled trades to employment opportunities where the youth would be supporting seniors, or they're from under-represented groups.
That extra funding—the $3.4 million you referenced—is absolutely to help us deal with the increasing volume of applications, but also, if we've asked employers to give us proof of a mentoring plan, we need to look at that and not simply pass lightly over the work that we're asking employers to do.