Part of what we're arguing for is a national organization, which is different from a languages commissioner. I don't think people are in opposition to that. They understand what it's for, but it's not exactly what indigenous people were advocating for in the consultation process that many of us were part of over the last two years.
What we're advocating for is a national body that would have regional hubs. It would take time. We would need a little bit of time. I know that we want to get a budget out and people are asking whom to write the cheques to. There's a reality to that, but indigenous people need to drive this process. We need a representational advisory group that can provide those answers for you, and that needs to happen fairly quickly.
To try to put more of a point to your.... I've been at these tables long enough to know that people need answers. What I would say more simply is the answers are going to need to be nuanced. There is no simple answer. It can't be just bilateral agreements with all the provinces and territories, because language work has not had the time to establish itself that way. You'll get push-back and people will say, “The territory is not ready for that” or “Are you going to do it per capita?” or “Those folks are going to miss out”, etc. There needs to be a nuanced funding plan.
There are some areas in Canada that are ready for that. Some solutions are clearer than others. Some regions need a little bit more time to work out, and there needs to be a different urban strategy because of the demographics that I spoke about. There needs to be a separate urban strategy that's different from the geographically specific indigenous strategies.