No, not at all. We selected these institutions based on the fact that we were focussing on Part VII. Every year, we choose a theme for the annual report and decide which institutions should be subject to a performance evaluation based on that theme. This year we decided to look closely at Part VII of the Act. As is clear in the report, the results turned out to be quite satisfactory. I think that can be explained by the nature of these institutions and the fact that they have fairly direct contact with the communities. As a result, they are more likely to consider the needs of these communities.
On the other hand, the evaluation does not consider the fact that, according to several institutions, Part VII does not apply to them because they have no direct contact with community organizations, particularly when it comes to providing funding. We therefore decided to focus on institutions with a specific vocation in relation to the communities, knowing that this would not necessarily explain to institutions in as dramatic a fashion that they do, indeed, have obligations, even though they claim otherwise.
Yet certain institutions were still surprised to discover that we expected them to consult certain communities before taking actions that could have a negative impact on them.