It's a very important question. It became very clear from day one that there are different needs for different languages and different groups and we had to have a bill that would be flexible enough to take that into consideration.
The other thing that was clear for us from day one is that this is a long-term process. You cannot arrive there with a bill, and the day after, you have helped to revitalize many languages and have protected them. It's a long-term effort that requires long-term funding. It requires multi-year funding, which this bill provides.
In the meantime, as we head there, we have this other program, which has, as I mentioned before, $90 million over three years. That's something which is there, but we want way more. We're more ambitious and the needs are more important than the program that is actually there. That is important, but this bill goes a long way in terms of respecting those rights and saying clearly that indigenous languages are a fundamental right. We say it in writing, and we also say in writing that there will be long-term and stable funding. We're committed. We're stuck. We tied our hands, and it's a good thing we did, so we have to provide that money.