Our committee analyzed the needs of the whole community and made recommendations at our annual general meeting. That was part of a mechanism that had been accepted. It was a pilot project that was seen in a positive light by all francophone and Acadian communities throughout the country. Then, we all worked together to express our needs and to try to find solutions rather than fall into the traps that often divide communities which are all extremely hungry. For example—and this goes back to the question that was raised earlier—the budget for this agreement has been the same for 10 years, except for the paltry 11% granted two years ago. Is there anyone here who could manage a household with the same salary for 10 years, without a raise? It is unthinkable. Moreover, these amounts were far from meeting the needs that existed even at that time.
Considering the meagre amounts that we were given, we felt that this was the best way to prevent dissension, because we still managed to get along. Things also worked well with Heritage Canada. However, it was a pilot project, and it was not renewed because of a change in policy at the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I would like to mention a mistake that someone made earlier in saying that people from the Department of Canadian Heritage only spoke in English when they traveled up north. That is not correct. It is the members of the House of Commons committee who conducted their hearings in English only when they visited us to discuss the Canadian Heritage file. That led to a number of situations that were impossible to manage. It was also the subject of complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We don't have that type of problem with the department and its officials, it's the House of Commons that seems to have these problems.