Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Good morning, Mr. Smith. It's good to see you again. I'm afraid that what I'm going to say will be a continuation of some of the conversations we've had in the past.
First of all, I would like to address some of the comments my colleagues across the floor have made this morning.
To begin with, Mr. Lemieux just mentioned that people in general, and the government specifically, speak against the court challenges program. As I am aware, and I think everyone around this table is aware, the government hasn't spoken about the court challenges program. It didn't just show concern about the court challenges program, it got rid of it. Let's use words for what they mean: it got rid of it.
I think we can have concerns about it and can make it better—there are always ways to make it better—but the government got rid of it, and I think we have to recognize that.
As to the fact that the people who administered the program were not making it available to all Canadians, because they had to sift through to find those Canadians they accepted, one could say the same thing about Canadians who go to an appeal, because they're not sure their appeal is even going to be received. If you go to the Supreme Court, you're not sure the Supreme Court will accept hearing you. But that doesn't mean that the appeal or the Supreme Court is not available to all Canadians. I think we have to take that into consideration.
Mr. Chong mentioned it is not a healthy state for communities to be inward-looking through their schools. That may be so, but in my experience and the experience of everybody particularly on this side of the table, those who are not protected disappear altogether. It's not a matter of being sick; it's a matter of totally disappearing and not existing any more. So you have a choice: are you going to be sick on your terms, or are you going to disappear as a community altogether? I think many people have made that choice.
I've addressed those two comments, but I would like to address the comments you've made, Mr. Smith.
I'm a former linguist and have worked a lot on bilingualism. I worked a lot on teaching a second language in school, whether it's French as a second language or English as a second language. I actually set up what we call the Six Plus program, to teach English in grade 6 as a second language to French students. What we observed was a repetition of the old pattern, that English, despite everything that has been done in Quebec, is still the dominant language. The proof of that is simply that when kids get together, because of social and cultural constraints, through rock music or whatever, English is still the language kids like to speak to each other, whether they are French-speaking from birth or have learned French because their first language was an immigrant language, if I can call it that.
So there is a strong movement in Quebec to combat this, and the only way you can it is to make sure that the French language is strong in the student from the very beginning. This was the reason behind the Quebec government's decision not to allow ESL, English as a second language, to be taught before grade 4, because they wanted French kids to have a good control over their own language, French, before they went on to a second language. I agree with this.
By extension, if you go into a school system where the French kids and the English kids are totally mixed together at all times—although I think it's always good to mix kids, or anybody, together—in this particular case, because French is not the dominant language in Quebec, what would happen is what has happened in the past. Mr. Godin was a good witness of this. They would talk French because they had to do so in the classroom, but the minute they get out in the courtyard or out in the street, it would still be English, as it has always been. This is a fact of life. If you put the kids together, socially this is what will happen.
This is the price that I think we have to pay as a society, not just in Quebec but throughout Canada. This is the price we have to pay in order to protect the second language community, which in most cases happens to be the French community, the French...or sorry, not second language, but French minority community.
The English community has lost a lot of its members because of language problems, yes, it's true. But that does not change the fact that it is still the dominant language in Quebec.
Thank you.