Absolutely, it's a concern. Often, when we intervene on matters of provincial jurisdiction, our concern is about the impact that could have on other communities outside the province where the debate is being waged. The national impact concerns us.
More generally speaking, I would say that Canada's language policy has been a deliberate compromise between the principle of individuality, on the one hand, and the principle of territoriality, on the other. On an international level, an example of the territoriality principle is Belgium, where, if you cross the street or cross a territorial border, you have no language rights. The territory is precisely limited. There are other countries, such as South Africa, where, in the past, it's been completely individual. There was no attachment to a territory, whereas, in Finland, there are designated bilingual regions and other regions that are not. Our policy is really a compromise between these two principles. There is a balance, if you will, between the territoriality principle and the individuality principle. It's often a balance that's hard to maintain; every change that might influence that balance must be examined.