I'll just give an example to back it up.
As you point out, there's one official language in Quebec. It's not English, and we don't have an objection to that, and we're not trying to attack that social bargain, which is functioning pretty well, but as a result of that, unlike in Ontario where there's a ministry that addresses the question and is there to receive representation from this francophone minority, there's no English minority, so there's no ministry.
Now we're trying to develop some channels so the government can, on a public policy plane, have a dialogue with the community and not run into the kind of problems they've had with the last two major pieces of reform legislation. They were drafted in such a way that they didn't take the historical rights of the community into account, and they had to be changed in the course of their adoption in the National Assembly, which was complicated, difficult, and embarrassing. It wasn't really the purpose of these pieces of legislation to put the community in a bad situation. It was unintended; they just didn't know how to do this, that sort of situation.
We have to have a better dialogue. Better facts can establish a better dialogue. While there is only one official language in Quebec, the education act refers to the English minority. The health and social services act and the preamble to the charter of the French language refer to the English-speaking community. We're not absent. It's confused, and we need to get precision.