There are a few parts to the question.
On the question of public funding, I think if we decide that it's important, then it needs to be funded. There are only so many options in terms of how this kind of work can be funded, and government is part of the answer. I don't think it should be the complete answer, and that's also why I mentioned in my opening remarks that philanthropy is mobilizing in response to events around the world and seeing that this is important. I don't think government would be alone at the table, either on co-funding different organizations or maybe in a closer collaboration.
Ultimately, if we decide this is important and it needs to be independent, having multiple sources of funding is part of the answer.
To your question around what it would fund exactly, I heard the end of the previous panel discussing issues of social cohesion, and that is so important to Madame Normandin's point about community organizations being over-stretched. All of that is crucial, but I would distinguish general work around civil society from work that is about strengthening the connection between people and institutions. That exists on a spectrum from education around voting to the fact that you can come sit at committees and to misinformation, disinformation and media literacy.
There are all of those questions, from education to get out the vote efforts and community mobilizing and having spaces where people can discuss complex issues, such as, for example, citizens' assemblies. I know you heard from Mr. MacLeod and the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, who, as you've also heard, for example, have been doing these citizens' assemblies with young people around AI.
These opportunities for people to understand the complexity of policy are also important so that people have trust that policy decisions are made weighing factors appropriately.