Good. I'll move on. Thank you, Ms. Toogood.
One common theme we've heard through the course of the testimony here is that time and time again—and again today—we hear very compelling examples of vulnerable women, women's groups, visible minorities, immigrant women, and senior women who are experiencing needs in their own communities. We have heard from you today that your role is to provide a voice, to be an advocate, and so on.
That said, I'm running into a bit of disconnect here. The way in which the terms and conditions are set now is that it is specifically to get practical, concrete programs that would help those same vulnerable women who have those needs to get a step up--getting involved in entrepreneurship, say, or the kinds of opportunities that will actually lift them from that situation and improve their lives.
But the disconnect here involves how an advocacy group that is a voice, that talks about rights...and I take nothing away from that, by the way. That's an important role. I'm just saying that when it comes to public funds, wouldn't it be better to have public funds spent on the programs and concrete remedies that will actually help women and improve their lives directly, and at the same time allow organizations that engage in advocacy to continue to do their work, getting the funds they need to do that from the sources that agreeably, as you pointed out, are available out there for that? So in terms of public expenditure, let's put it where the needs are most.
Would you have a comment on that, Ms. Murphy? I notice you had some very good examples. From what I can see, these programs would help.