Okay.
I will answer in English.
On the question of diaspora contributions, first, education, health, housing, yes; but as I mentioned, depending on the country, 5% to 15% of remittances go back for collective projects. Take ROCAHD in Montreal and the projects they finance: building schools, building health clinics, building roads, putting in libraries, sending back medical personnel. The diaspora in the collective projects are involved in these sorts of things.
The Mexicans have a project called “Tres por uno”, now “Cuatro por uno”—quatre pour un—and this basically takes contributions that diasporas are making for roads, for hospitals, and matching four to one with Mexican government money. They bring in local actors such as the state or the municipality to work on projects together. So as diasporas are brought into the development process, by partnering with development agencies, by working with the state, you get this coordination the same way that you have with NGOs.
In terms of the larger coordination for diasporas in the private sector, again, as you develop partnerships between the private sector and aid agencies, this coordination results. You have an exchange of expertise, of knowledge. The private sector is already involved. By working with them, you're not subsidizing them. You're not giving them money. Just like working with the diaspora, you're helping to make them better development actors. Likewise, they help make CIDA a better development actor.
So there's this cross-fertilization, not subsidization. It's a complete misunderstanding of the situation to think of this as subsidy. I can tell you that everyone who works on the issue would agree on that point.