Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to react to the comments made by Mr. D'Amours, who has in fact pointed out an aspect that I had referred to earlier, namely the contrast between the two positions. This serious dichotomy is easy to understand.
Earlier, Ms. Gallant informed us about the comments made by Ms. Landry, an educator who teaches the codes to people who need to learn them. You referred to the Abraham Nemeth Code. If I understood correctly, this code is a type of standardization. This is understood in both French and English.
Moreover, as Mr. Côté pointed out, France, through some kind of organization that I am not exactly familiar with, wanted to standardize the French language. It is different from the standardization brought about the Abraham Nemeth Code. If we can draw a comparison, this code is for people, I presume, who use the alphabet that we use in both French and English.
I'm going to ask you a $10-question. Would not the Abraham Nemeth Code be a solution to this standardization which would make the job easier? I know that this would be one reform on the heels of another, but would not this be simpler than going ahead with this so-called French standardization of French that we are already familiar with in Quebec? In this way, the people from New Brunswick or elsewhere who are learning the code in English would not have to deal with three different codes, namely the code from France, the one from Quebec and the one used in anglophone Canada. Would not the Abraham Nemeth Code be a comprehensive solution to the situation currently being experienced by people using these codes?