I hesitate to get into the details, because we are continuing to monitor the details of the rollout of the plan. I was pleased to see the addition of the cultural component you referred to. I've been pleased to see the investment in immigration. There are elements regarding second language learning that I think are important.
On the other hand, as I said earlier, I was sorry to see that there has been a reduction of the component for language training within the public sector. As you pointed out, the program was the renewal of a $750 million program into a $1.1 billion program. With the addition of the cultural element and the nature of inflation, I think there are some substantial similarities in terms of the gross amount. I was able to learn after the fact why the cultural component had not originally been included. The cultural sector at that point was simply not prepared to enter into the kind of process of accountability and management of public funds that it then reached the point that it was able to do so.
I think the one is a renewal of the other. There have been some re-calibrations and shifts along the way. There are some things that have been strengthened. There are other things in that shift of priorities that.... As I say, I was sorry to see there was a diminution in the investment in language training in the public sector. But I'm not in a position to go into a more detailed financial accounting, if you like, of the two.
If I can just come back to a question on the consultation we had on the regulation, which was raised by Mr. BĂ©langer, we were consulted in 2001 on the modification of the regulation at that point. That was before my time, but it was the change to the regulation that took into account the Supreme Court judgment on Donnie Doucet. So there have been some in the past, but that was prior to having the position I now hold.