Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that there is a total lack of clarity, and that constitutionally speaking, we are digressing from the framework of the British North America Act. With all due respect to the people of Acadie—Bathurst, I'm referring here to the British North America Act, and not Alcoholics Anonymous of New Brunswick. It is very important to understand that certain components of Mr. Chong's motion and Mr. Coderre's amendment need to be rectified. Allow me to elaborate.
I believe that Mr. Chong is mistaken in his basic premise. In Ontario, the Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario and the Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française du Centre-Est both receive public funding. They are a part of the public structure. There are also private schools. When Mr. Chong equates religious schools to private institutions, for example the schools of the Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française du Centre-Est, he is mistaken. These schools are recognized, and receive funding. A certain Mike Harris made this possible. For a long time, these schools did not receive much funding. The schools in these shool boards received less money, because of the way taxes were levied.
Therefore, in a highly socialist-minded gesture, Mike Harris — life is full of unexpected twists and turns — changed things so as to channel funds destined to both separate and public schools directly to the Ministry of Education of Ontario. Consequently, all these school boards now receive the same amount of money, whereas during the pre-Harris era funding levels depended on the financial status of the school boards.
For example, the French-Language School Board of Ottawa-Carleton is very rich compared to the Catholic School Board of Dubreuilville. Mr. Chong and Mr. St. Denis are probably familiar with this area, because it is located in the far northern reaches of Ontario. That school board was poorer than others, and therefore received less when funds were divvied up. This is an important point. When a motion is put forward, one should make sure that the basic premise is accurate, which is not the case currently. I'm very disappointed with the Conservatives, who have not done their homework properly. They would receive a very low mark for that.
At issue are the agreements, specifically the Canada-Ontario agreement on education, if I am not mistaken. If they are signed by the federal government, and are the responsibility of Canadian Heritage. Each province and each territory has the option of signing on to such an agreement relative to instruction in the language of the minority.
There is French as a first language and French as a second language. With respect to French as a first language, we are talking about schools in which French is used, and where it is important both linguistically and culturally. In the case of French as a second language, this applies to people who do not speak French on a regular basis, but may have spoken it before being assimilated in the context of their workplace, for instance. Be that as it may, it is a second language. The goal is to allow these people to benefit from the funds made available by the federal government through the Canada-Ontario agreements. It is a matter of receiving instruction upon the request made by the provincial partner, as outlined in an official agreement. Everyone must agree on the terms of these agreements.
From that point on, the funds are distributed through a provincial mechanism. The federal government's task is to provide the funding, in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded between the province and the federal government. This is a rather painful part of the story, and I applaud Mr. Chong for having spoken of it. Some Ontario parents want their children to learn French. But the funding allocated to learning French as a second language in Ontario has been cut here and there.
There have been many cases in Canadian history where francophones have seen their schools shut down.
