It's a creative level of vagueness.
I think big ideas are often legislated in vague terms. The Constitution Act, 1982 was not specific in a number of things. That's why we have the Supreme Court. It's why the law develops and it's why the law is flexible. Flexibility is something that certainly characterizes the Canadian discussion.
The principle that the bill represents, that parliamentarians have a right to work in English and French, and that English and French have equality in their use in this institution, is what we support. That supports linguistic duality. The QCGN is behind that. Anything that expands upon that is a good thing. Anything that is retrograde from that is a bad thing. It's a pretty simple position.