I don't know if it was in your statements earlier, but with the changes, particularly to the language programs, what kind of review process will there be in terms of the impacts if we're seeing a significant drop-off? We all seek to follow the government guidelines on reducing expenditures, but the ability of MPs to become better at their second language is an important one—a principle that we also hold—and we're seeking not to have unintended consequences, I suppose is the term I'm looking for.
How will the board or your administration seek to make sure the changes to the way we handle language training don't have a significant impact on the House's ability to communicate in both official languages?