Sure. I can give it a quick stab.
One of the things we've learned in the establishment of the urban partnerships program, specifically on innovation and the social economy, is that the closer the money gets to the community before it's decided how it's used, the more effective it becomes. The community needs to own projects, let's call them; they have to be community-owned projects. If you don't have community buy-in, you can't sustain them in the long run.
One of the federal-provincial structural things we've found is that from my offices we push down resources to the community level, much like the model here from our colleague in British Columbia, because they're only one degree of separation away from the folks on the ground who are actually having to push this through. Any top-down structure doesn't really work. It has to be pushed down to the community, and it has to allow a little bit of risk. For federal programming, in the case of the one that we administer, we found that pushing it down to that level helped.
I'm going to agree right away with my colleague here. I'm a not-for-profit organization. I can't maintain a profit and I can't put it back in under the current tax rules governing not-for-profits. I have to come out with a zero balance every year. I have a $49-million budget. Coming out with a zero balance is tricky business sometimes.