I apologize, but I am going to answer you in English.
You'd be hard pressed to find a social justice organization that doesn't suggest they should have more funding. Realistically, as far as funding allocations go, it's an industry. The non-profit industries always operate on a very narrow margin, and that's even more acute in the north, where, as Mr. Wever has already said, you sort of make it work.
Absolutely, if there were more funding that was reflective of the fact that some of the organizations in the north are servicing a population that is extremely disparate, that the programs we're delivering aren't simply being delivered in a large centre or in a large or a single community but into smaller communities—then that would provide that opportunity for travel.
I will give you a specific example with respect to the shelter network that we're currently chairing. In order to bring the five shelters together, it's $10,000 to get everybody into the city for a week. That's the only opportunity to provide meaningful training that is then able to be taken back to these small communities where these projects can be delivered. I know that some of the other groups in town, for example, the Native Women's Association, face a similar challenge, that when they want to bring their membership together for a week of training or participation or development or growth, again, the simple costs of bringing people together are into the tens of thousands of dollars for a week of training. I assume, being that you are all present here, that you can experience the difference that it is to sometimes sit in a room together.
The short answer is that funding that is reflective of the geographic impact and the lack of infrastructure alternative—we have to fly—would certainly make a difference in terms of developing capacity in these organizations.