I think that the institutional impact is significant. I will put on my professor hat for a few seconds by referring to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who said that the general will, which is the legal dimension, is what remains once all the differences in a society have been eliminated. The will of all citizens is expressed once we have negotiated the differences and policies have been made. In his opinion, one governs with the will of all citizens and not with general will. That's the distinction I make between the legal framework and the political framework. The legal framework may very well be the one in which we operate. I agree that the Dion plan was a step in that direction, but it didn't go far enough. It focused a great deal on immersion programs. That was the focus rather than community institutionalization.
We should remember that the Dion plan made no reference to the culture of francophones outside Quebec, that it made no reference to cultural institutions. That's why I am saying that we need to institutionalize francophone communities. I think that the economic criteria are extremely important, particularly in regions with a strong francophone population. That is where we see problems of economic under-development. In Canada, even in the 1960s and 70s, we never wanted to associate economic development programs with the cultural enhancement of languages. Yet, language is an essential part of the definition itself of Canada. The idea has always been that economic development was a separate occurrence.