I think the program is highly accountable and all of the applicants are highly accountable. I don't think, in the history of this program back to 1972, there has ever been found to be a case of abuse, fraud, theft, or anything like that. You're dealing with museums here, you know. These are honest folk who are working very hard for very low wages. There's no private gain--all of that sort of stuff.
In terms of efficiency, yes. We believe there's a lot of efficiency that can be achieved by moving the programs out to an arm's-length agency. The Canada Council, for example, operates on an overhead allocation of about 15%. Don't hold me to that figure, but it's somewhere in that range, which is a very reasonable figure. About eight to ten years ago it was actually operating at about a 25% overhead allocation, which was too high. It has made itself a much more efficient organization. It makes qualitative decisions, sometimes difficult ones, using the peer juries. I think it is, in fact, a model of a well-run program.
We would like to see these museum programs moved to such an agency. It would expedite the process. The same level of accountability can be there. The paperwork can be less onerous than it is at present. We have some museums right now that have been waiting eleven months, twelve months. They applied last November 1, and still haven't got a yes or no. And that's just no way to run a railway--or a national railway.
We need to see how the program itself can be efficient, and I'm quite sure that is possible. Being at arm's length is one idea. We mentioned setting up a heritage council, but there are other structures that already exist that could take on such a program.