Of course, there are always things that can be improved in regulations.
Let me give you the example of the use of a very technical term, the “adhesion contract.” When an employment contract is considered an adhesion contract, the contract must be provided to the employee in French. The term “adhesion contract” is a concept used in civil law, which is defined in the Civil Code of Quebec. It does not exist in common law. So, when the regulation begins to apply in the provinces and territories where common law applies, people will wonder exactly what an adhesion contract is. It might therefore be necessary to propose a definition in the regulation, or to adopt the one from the Civil Code. In any case, for the provinces where common law applies, that would be practical.
Let me give you another example. When establishing a committee to promote the French language, half of the representatives must be selected by management and the other half by the employees—that is, by the unions. Quebec's Charter of the French Language is very clear on how to do this when there are multiple unions. The regulation, however, provides no details.
I'm not saying this is wrong or bad, but it's unclear. We don't know what to do. The ministry could issue guidelines later, or changes could be made directly to the regulation. In Quebec, this was done directly in the language of the law rather than through guidelines. The unions meet and select the committee representatives. They do not necessarily work with one another. It is therefore easier for each union to choose its own representatives, and that would be our recommendation.
There are several recommendations, and I am sure we will have the opportunity to submit them in writing during the more formal process of the Canada Gazette. We would be happy to—