On the first question, I think a lot of the education reintegration programs that were developed in the early 1990s had a lower standard, absolutely. I think it became readily apparent when people came out of them ill-prepared for whatever trade or job they were going into.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s I started an alternative school in downtown Toronto, partnering with the Toronto school board. Ultimately, Jarvis Collegiate was our host school, and credits and diplomas flowed through them. I'm not speaking ill of them, but the original idea was to take the basic level of programs, and we resisted.
We said, “Let's do the advanced level of programs. Let's have that as a standard. If people honestly can't meet the advanced standard, then we'll make accommodations. Let's not have the basic level as the default.” I think it's true that there is a general stream of consciousness that because of all these challenges and because they dropped out, or whatever, they aren't going to be strong enough academically.
We were pushing back against that. I think it's probably the same across the country. That's the default position unless you push back. That's the standard at which it is going to be applied.
What's your second question again? I apologize.