I'll start by making two points. There are several reasons for complying with jurisdictions.
First, when you're dealing with official languages, you don't want to constantly be tying things up in court. Earlier on, we were talking about a standstill. The best way to bring everything to a standstill is to allow everyone in Canada to challenge results. That halts the process. Take the Montfort hospital. How long did it take to settle that dispute? Four years. That's one thing.
How can one be very efficient without paralyzing the system and without creating undue financial pressure, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial level, because provinces will be affected as a consequence? That is why we felt we needed to proceed through consultation. It is true that the education exercise we undertook was very long. Ms. Adam even asked us when we were going to get results. It is true that it was a very long process, but we learned a lot.
We did our consultations ourselves, and we asked the provinces to consult with their school boards, for example. School boards are very important. They will be meeting this weekend. It's important that they be a part of this process but the provinces have to consult them because this is a provincial jurisdiction. If we make these consultations obligatory and we provide a framework, then the result of the negotiations will be much more tailored to the needs of the communities than if we decide what those communities' needs are, here in Ottawa.
Second, you mentioned compliance with jurisdictions. This has been an important factor. You know that I am quite concerned about that aspect. The Supreme Court, in its latest rulings, has consistently taken into account the various communities' unique characteristics, including those of Quebec, being fully aware that francophones are a majority in Quebec but a minority in the rest of America. It has always taken into account Bill 101. Under our Constitution, our statutes cannot encroach upon provincial legislation, and the Supreme Court, in its rulings, has made sure that it is taking into account the uniqueness of each community. In this case, we're talking about Quebec.
Therefore, I am not concerned about this. I was concerned about something else however. The federal government can end up infringing through its spending authority. The federal government does not infringe on jurisdictions through its statutes but rather through its spending authority. If that spending authority is made justiciable and pressure is exerted on us, then this pressure will also inevitably be felt by our financial partners who are the provinces and the territories.
When one is talking about the public service or about bilingualism in our statutes, one is not talking about part VII, but rather about parts I, II, III, IV and V, which makes it much easier to justify the bilingual requirement or lack of. Part VII is much less easier to quantify. That is why in 1988, the focus was rather goodwill and good understanding. In order to ensure that there is no undue pressure on our partners or on ourselves—because the issue is the ability to pay—in order to not paralyze the system, we will oblige ourselves to consult people. If those consultations are insufficient, then we will have recourse to the courts and we will be able to tell people that they have not done their homework.