To hearken back to what I said previously, we need to understand the basic parameters of what government is hoping to see come out as a result. It should not be government saying it would like x number of young musicians, to use my model, to be performing in x number of cities, but a matter of giving Canadians as a whole the opportunity to share in the exchange of their cultures, whether through literature, interfaith events, music, painting. or whatever else. With these kinds of exchanges, the objective of lasting communications between the participants, and, as a result, their communities, will happen.
This is a very generic way of describing it, but if you understand the end results you'd like to see and if those are made clear as part of the terms of reference for any funding that's granted—and there should be reporting, as there always should be afterwards—there should be a deliverable that is less nitty-gritty or detailed as much as a broader picture of how we see this transformational year affecting our country and our society, going forward.
So if you can take a look at it from, let's say broadly, a broader policy point of view rather than x number of musicians performing in x number of cities point of view, I think you've basically got the starting point. I think if you take that view within the obvious limits.... It goes without saying that if you're working with young people, you have to have certain safeguards to ensure their safety, including background checks on the people who are going to be working with them, and all of those kinds of things. But if you basically are prepared to trust the people, the people who are creative and the public as a whole who are going to be basically providing the participation, this is really just about creating a forum for all of us in this country to come together.
We're pretty smart folks; we'll figure it out. If you basically give us the prod and the nudge, I think the Canadian people will do the rest.