Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two things.
First of all, in relation to the suggestion that this provision is only advisory, I think it's important to understand that it is in fact interpretive. In other words, it uses the word “shall”. Something that's providing advice doesn't just say “shall”. This is basically directing the courts and others on how to interpret this legislation. That's what it's about.
We also know there are different circumstances and different education systems across this country. With universities, for example, we know that on the cost of a university education, tuition levels in Quebec are much lower than they are in other provinces. That has to be considered. But we've also heard from the witnesses today that a province that opts out would have to offer programs for low-income students, persons with disabilities, etc.
The point is that this does cover it. I disagree with Mr. Chong in terms of his interpretation, but I respect his view. He has the right to interpret it as he sees fit, but I disagree with the interpretation he's offering. This is a good way to solve the problem the government has tried to bring forward in an attempt to derail the bill.
I hope the members will support the bill when it comes to the final vote, and this motion as well.