Yes.
I have only three minutes.
The more we look at the issue and share ideas, the more we see that we'll have to focus on the transfer of funding. Funding is crucial, and that's how the provinces get hurt. When the federal government allocates these enormous amounts to them, we must ensure they meet their obligations.
Going back to section 43 of the act, I don't like the wording where it states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage may take measures to "encourage and support the learning of English and French." That's paragraph 43(1)(b). I don't like the word "encourage". Since we're talking about accountability for funding transfers, it would be a good idea to use another expression such as "to ensure" the learning of French. The words in paragraph 43(1)(b) may sound right in church on a Sunday morning, but they're totally meaningless from a legal standpoint.
Don't you think that, to achieve what you're proposing, we should replace that wording with something more restrictive that will ensure that federal funding granted under agreements with the provinces goes to the right places?
I would draw a parallel with the mini-crisis involving the Quebec government and the federal Minister of Health, Ginette Petitpas Taylor. On the one hand, the minister claims there can't be two health systems in Quebec if the province wants its share of federal transfers. On the other, Quebec tells us to keep our nose out of its business. It's exactly the same situation.
How do you think language obligations should be enforced in the provinces in those circumstances?