Thank you very much.
Thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.
We've clearly chosen good witness panels for this morning's meeting. You live on the ground, you see the act's strengths and weaknesses, and you're comfortable telling us about them. We can't ask for anything more.
The key word that comes to my mind is "consultation". It appears there was no consultation at any level, which is disturbing. So we'll have to resolve the consultation issue.
In addition, another thing is bothering me in everything we've heard, and that's the transfer of responsibility from the federal government. Whether it's health, where transfers are made directly, education, employability or early childhood, the federal government doesn't ensure that the final product is the one that was expected, whereas it should do so under subsection 41(2) of the Official Languages Act. That's serious.
Like you educators, I'm very familiar with this file. I think we'll have to explore this part in much greater depth. There were no minority school boards when the charter was drafted. It was in the 1990s that the Supreme Court determined that an official language minority community had a right to education and to control and manage its educational institutions. However, you completely control their management. You control programming, but you don't have control over enumeration, properties or funding. So we're facing major problems in that regard.
The new regulations on French-language services will be helpful because they apply where there are French-language schools. We're talking about 600 additional offices. Arts and culture are extremely important in that they define us. I would like each of you to comment on the language clause that implies there is a language-related responsibility. I'd like to know how you think transfers could be structured so that the organization that provides a service for the federal government has the same responsibility. We didn't have that with Air Canada.
Please go ahead. Each of you can answer in turn.