Let me go back to the Correctional Service of Canada example. Because of the nature of the service they provide, they have an obligation to provide services to prisoners in both official languages.
However, if they're not employing enough anglophones under part VI, then they're less likely to have folks who can talk to the prisoners. The day I went to the federal training centre, for example, I was assured there was a capacity for all the guards, all the time, to speak both English and French to the prisoners. They took us into a unit where all the prisoners were English, and it just so happened that neither of the two guards on duty could speak English. This is obviously a safety problem, and there are all kinds of other problems associated with that.
That's part VI and that's part IV. Let me bring in part V. Because there are so few services available—because there are so few English-speaking guards and the capacity isn't there to provide part IV in terms of the language of work—we were told by Correctional Services that bilingual francophone guards purposely fail their language tests in order not to have to deal with English prisoners. This undermines part V.
The educational institutions that are providing college and high school-level educational services to English prisoners in the prison are the local French CEGEP and the local French school board. That's part VII, because there are local English institutions that aren't being supported by the federal institution.
The examples in our brief are a microcosm of how all parts of the act should be linked and what happens when they're not.