Thank you.
The fact that we are endeavouring to do studies that make sense is nothing new.
I have often mentioned that when I sat on other committees, we tried to work in the best interest of Canadians. One example is the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where all the members present felt strongly about the fishermen's situation. Those MPs represented ridings where there were a lot of fishers.
I would like us to have healthy discussions on important subjects. I think it would be unfortunate if we were to undertake this study blindly without counting the number of weeks that it will require. It is a relevant subject, but it does not need all this much time. We should restrict our study to a certain number of weeks.
Mind you, I do appreciate Mr. Calandra withdrawing the first paragraph. I think many people gave their opinion on that point. I would also like him to consider limiting the scope of the second paragraph where it mentions a study. The text is only in English. I have never received it in French. And that poses a problem, there is no denying that.
I will quote the paragraph that I am referring to. You are withdrawing the following:
A breakdown and comparison of relevant standards and courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions in each of the provinces and territories;
That is good, but we would like you to think about the amount of time that will be dedicated to this study and to consider removing the following words:
A review of federal, provincial and municipal programs designed to preserve our history and heritage;
We would like that to be withdrawn.
This would limit the question at the federal level.
I would like this to be limited to federal programs and for a timeframe to be put in place.
Mr. Calandra, I would like to know what you think about this. I appreciate what you have proposed for the first paragraph, but we believe that we need to reach a compromise.