Yes. On the one hand, Minister Duclos really should be applauded for his actions on early childhood. Very significant funding is being transferred to the provinces and territories. It's not enough, but it's definitely progress.
On the other hand, those linguistic provisions that are included in the agreements are deficient and made in piecemeal fashion. There will be one in an agreement negotiated by Mr. Duclos and another in an agreement negotiated by Ms. Joly, and there will be a third one here or there. They will have to be standardized. That should be done. The Official Languages Act should clearly prescribe the linguistic minimum that should be included in every federal-provincial agreement. That specifically is the wording that was proposed by the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises on page 18 of its brief.
The proportional nature of the process is a concept that you find in other fields such as health, for example. It's widely done, but it's done in piecemeal fashion. When things go well—this goes somewhat to the chair's question—it's a matter of chance, but when they go badly, it's because the structure is defective. Please amend the legal architecture.
I want to thank Mr. Bossé for reminding me of one point. Sometimes things go well, and that's a matter of chance. The agreement between the federal government and the provinces on cultural infrastructure is important. Infrastructure means money. However, this agreement includes no linguistic clause. The federal government is enormous. A federal institution can't always be expected to consult the others. That's why such important matters must go through a central organization. That's done with regard to pay equity and racial equality as well as in other important fields. There are federal standards. The same should be done for official languages.