I wouldn't say it no longer means anything. We should continue analyzing part VII despite Judge Gascon's decision.
The federal government's argument at the time was that part VII isn't affected by the cancellation of a program, just as a forest is unaffected by the felling of a single tree, and that, if the forest is still living, this can't be a negative measure. At that point, I asked the judge how many trees had to be cut down before the forest began to disappear and it was too late to save the situation.
I think part VII is essential. You have to define what constitutes a positive measure, and I believe that should be done immediately by regulation and in consultation with the official language minority communities in Canada.
When you say positive measures, we all know what that means, but, at the same time, we don't. This is the kind of provision that causes lawyers to break out in hives. Terms such as "reasonable person" must be defined in order to have content. Those words should be defined in consultation with the official language minority communities because they know best how measures can have a negative or positive impact on them.