Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for making that argument, which I was referring to earlier. In his opinion, children should have acquired the minimum language skills needed, so he doesn't understand our objection to the testing.
It's important to consider the issue from the opposite perspective. It is true that, after having lived in Canada for a number of years, minors who would have attended school in one of the two official languages should, under normal circumstances, have attained a certain level of language proficiency; I don't disagree with that. But what will happen to those who don't? That is the problem.
When a major organization like UNICEF raises concerns that Canada could be in violation of a convention it has signed, they cannot be taken lightly. That is cause for serious reflection.
Even though the vast majority of minors will already have the proficiency level needed to pass the test, we still need to ask what will come of the small minority who don't, either because of stress, a difficult family situation, an undiagnosed learning disability or any other reason. A 14-year-old should not have to bear that burden. And the opposition party isn't the only one who feels that way, so too, do the people at UNICEF. It's absolutely appalling for Canada not to take these concerns seriously.