That's a very good question. In my opinion, we're touching on a point that could generate some interesting recommendations from your committee.
I wouldn't say that the province, namely British Columbia, doesn't consult us. Post-secondary institutions are consulted. This is true of Collège Éducacentre and ours as well. At the federal level, we have a good relationship with the Department of Canadian Heritage by default.
However, there is a government-to-government negotiation afterwards in which we really don't participate. The negotiation takes place without us. We then hope that our Deputy Minister of Education will defend the interests of our university and those of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.
This is where community engagement comes in. We can imagine a governance model that isn't exclusively governmental and only involving the federal and provincial governments, where not all partners are at the table. I know we're not an elected government. On the other hand, I think there could be some creativity.
ACUFC's recommendation is excellent. It talks about a national consultation table, in addition to the existing one. Mr. Samson alluded to it earlier, in the presence of the other witnesses. I think it's relevant, too. So we're talking about a national table on post-secondary education. I think we could collaborate a great deal more. This idea has barely been discussed, but we could collaborate on a system in Western Canada, in Acadia, and so on.
There are a multitude of possibilities. Right now, the way we do things is a bit old-fashioned. We've been doing it for 20 years and it hasn't changed. I think we can come up with something else.