About the first question, in relation to the attributes of the Australian system, I don't think you can replicate systems; you can take particular aspects of systems. And what I take from Australia certainly is that there is a need to prioritize and target effectively. Post-1988, there was a concentration in Australia on a number of sports, eight sports initially, and targeting those sports that had the highest success at the Olympic Games and at the international level.
In the end, I don't believe we can be everything to everyone. So we do have to target and prioritize.
I think the other aspect is the whole issue of Canadian sport centres and moving to an institute-type model, where you're creating a high-performance centre or high-performance precincts where you have coaches, support service providers, and running programs. I think that will raise the bar as well.
So there are certain things that you need to take in order to have a leading-edge system, but I wouldn't replicate the Australian system. We need to have a Canadian model, and that's what we're trying to do now.
In relation to the second aspect, yes, it's true, if you take a look at the 2010 OTP program, where there's $11 million committed by the federal government and $11 million committed by the private sector, we are certainly looking at that. The Canadian Olympic Committee has set up a foundation to fundraise. So it is a partnership; we're not asking the federal government alone.
In the end, we need to have the resources if we want to be successful in the future. Right now, there exists an inequity between summer and winter sport, and we're trying to address that.