Coincidentally, one of you asked the minister earlier what he had learned from the consultations. I had an answer to suggest to him, and I'm glad you gave me the chance to give it to you. In fact, the variety of needs and the diversity of indigenous languages are the real wealth to be preserved. It might be risky to try to unilaterally define the elements common to these languages, which could stem from their very long cohabitation since long before the Europeans arrived. However, there are indeed important variants, particularly for Inuktut, the Algonquin languages and the other major linguistic families.
It would be difficult to target any particular common element, except—unless I'm mistaken—the fact that most of these languages are oral. Very few of these languages are written, which makes their preservation all the more urgent. During consultations, it was recommended that we ensure that we have technological support to record, safeguard and preserve the languages that are still spoken so that they can be resurrected should they disappear, as the written form of these languages barely exists at all. It is true that Inuktitut began to be written, but not uniformly.
So there are very few common elements, except for this great diversity. That is why the work must be very specific and very granular. One of the challenges we had in drafting this bill was not specifying in the bill all the details of what needs to be done and how to do it, otherwise we would have run the very real risk of forgetting some along the way. That's why we have decided to do the opposite, to establish principles and guarantee rights in the legislation, and to use specific granular agreements to ensure the preservation, revitalization and promotion of these languages.
I don't know, Mélanie. You keep on saying yes.
I would like you to add your comments on that.