It is not my intention to pick on Mr. Chong here this morning, but he was saying that in his opinion, the point of the program was to clarify legislation and to make sure there were legal precedents and that now, there should be enough of them.
Do you think that Mr. Mulroney, the former Conservative Prime Minister, believed that there were enough legal precedents in 1992 to abolish this program? From 1992 to 2006 were any new cases brought forward? Mr. Doucet, you said that the Constitution is a living thing. We experience it every day and things change. Was the program useful and did it serve to clarify the law, especially since S-3, the new bill, was adopted? We will be facing the challenge of referring to it. Isn't the government, that good citizen, violating the law? Does Bill S-3 solve all our problems? Do we still need to go before the courts? If not, will the communities have to test the legislation to know whether the government is compliant within its institutions? It has a responsibility to set in place mechanisms to serve people in both official languages.