To answer Mr. Bélanger's question, I would like to mention that there is an aspect that is often hard for the communities to accept. The decisions made by Canadian Heritage on the allocation and distribution of funding are not always consistent with interests as the community defines them. We need the contribution agreements or accords to contain a mechanism that makes it possible to go to mediation to negotiate or review the allocation of funding. Ultimately, there could be an arbitration mechanism so that the complaints of the various communities could be well heard and so that we could understand what we're seeking.
We don't have the necessary influence to make Canadian Heritage move in a given direction, unless the Roadmap is clear and well developed. With a program that evolves over time, the allocation and distribution of funding and the power granted to the administration, the decision on priority-setting is often made based on other interests, as a result of which we're trapped by the program's evolution. If one thing had to be included in the agreements, that would be this mediation and arbitration mechanism so that we would be able to reflect the strategic plans for the communities.