Flexibility should be around readiness and where you are in any particular state of your language in x community. We should not draft three priority areas of low-readiness or emergent, developing communities in setting the standards for language reclamation. It should not displace those communities who are far advanced in language reclamation and recovery, making them wait or be slowed down waiting for everybody else. I agree that there is no one-size-fits-all model.
That view is of course shared by Onowa, and I'll ask her to get into more detail about readiness and the states of readiness.
I believe this bill allows for flexibility of funding. I would encourage that the commissioner's office support the establishment of certification standards to develop and implement plans for reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening the languages.
The issue I have is with “At the request of an Indigenous community”. If we have 90 languages and 90 come to request support, who is more important? I think everybody is equally important, and I would never take away from that.