As far as consultations go, I was in Moncton—I have mentioned this three times now—and I remember a speaker who said hello to everyone, introduced himself and specified that he was not the leader or president of any organization. That made the people in the room laugh because everyone we had heard from so far was a director or a president of an organization.
I think it is important to hear that voice, as well, to consult those people, to take the pulse of a population that is not necessarily part of organizations that defend very sectoral, very specific interests, but that does provide a different perspective. To my mind, diversity of viewpoints is essential in consultations. When organizations are consulted exclusively or primarily, there is a risk of maintaining the status quo in terms of intervention models in communities.
It must be possible to question certain practices. I'm not saying that is not the case, but health organizations will say it is important to take action in health. In early childhood, people will say it is important to take action in early childhood. The same goes for the economy, arts and culture, and so on. Interests are very defined within the organization. If consultations were limited to that, the status quo would be ensured, with the focus always on enhancement, in the sense that more is always being requested. That is normal; it's the nature of those types of consultations.
That is why it is important to change up the consultations, so as to also include in them citizens and independent researchers whose perspectives can also be critical in terms of the collective reflection we are engaging in on official languages.