I don't think that would complicate matters.
I'll give you an example that doesn't come from the draft regulations. Regarding the issue of francophone immigration targets in minority communities, we've set progressive targets and we're committed to achieving them. If the draft regulations included a “ratchet” principle, that is to say, a no-backsliding principle under which we must always move toward providing more services in official language minority communities rather than constantly reassessing those services, that would be positive. This same principle is part of the official languages regulations under part IV of the Official Languages Act. So, just because there's been a slight drop in the percentage of francophones in a region doesn't mean that it will automatically be removed from the areas designated by the draft regulations. I think that's important.
On the issue of active offer, I just want to add one thing. As Mr. Bentley briefly mentioned, there is also the matter of end-to-end service. The initial contact, often at reception, can take place in French, but when matters become a bit more complex, such as when initiating bankruptcy proceedings, telecommunications companies or banks don't necessarily, at this time, automatically offer their services in French. Perhaps the draft regulations should make it clearer that businesses must not only provide frontline customer service in French, but that they also have an obligation to offer services in French in the context of more complex processes and legal matters.