I think there are two parts to that problem. The first is not connected to the language issue. It is the rural exodus. That's happening across the country. Francophones are leaving the small municipalities in Manitoba to go to the cities. Anglophones are doing it as well. It's not just for linguistic reasons; it's a universal phenomenon that is not limited to Canada. It is a global phenomenon. People are leaving small municipalities to go to the cities around the world.
The second factor is the following. I would say that three aspects of the act concern the retention issue. First is the community's vitality. Are there cultural resources? Is education of good quality? Are there health services? In addition, is the federal government able to provide services in both languages? And do employees have the right to work in French?
In a way, there is a triangular effect. At one point, I met someone from the Department of Justice who told me that, in some cases outside Quebec, they needed lawyers who could practise in both languages. That requires quite an intense level of professionalism and bilingualism. He also told me that they knew where to find those lawyers, but that, if they arrived in a city where the minority community did not have enough cultural vitality, their families wouldn't want to live there. If there are no possible jobs for their husbands or wives, they won't want to stay. So they go back home. Those communities have to be welcoming for people who arrive. It's also essential that people want to live there. So there's this triangular element. I don't think we should just dwell on the question whether the post office can sell its stamps in French. You also have to consider the question of community life as a whole.