Yes.
I'm coming back to Justice Gascon's ruling, which will be heard very soon at the Federal Court of Appeal. We may get a more detailed and intelligent answer to your question than the response I'm about to give you.
At trial, Justice Gascon said that the term was not defined and was therefore too vague. Personally, as a law researcher, I see this as an opportunity with plenty of potential. When a definition or a term is too vague, that means there is a certain discretion in selecting the positive measure that would meet the part VII obligation and commitment.
In my view, the intention of part VII was to take the positive measures that are likely to meet the commitment objective. The commitment is to enhance the vitality of these communities. If the money is sent directly to the communities and the transfers are reduced accordingly, this would be a positive measure that can achieve the objective of part VII.