Let me start by saying that I was one who didn't want that, because we offered French and English education in a Protestant milieu. All those who said they were Protestant got through the door. So we had a 50-50 system of French schools and English schools, and I loved it.
On the other hand, I have to tell you, in all sincerity, that I think it has worked well. The decision taken by the provincial government leader at the time, which I objected to, has worked out very well. I think it's brought our English-speaking community together even more. We've experienced losses of enrollment. Many of our anglophone students, by the way, roughly 9,000 to 14,000—it's a big spread—still attend French schools, because it's a big attraction language-wise. We're competing with our French neighbouring school boards, and we are competing hard because
they are able to provide a francophone setting that we cannot provide in our schools.
And finally, the ministry of education views us as a minority. They often consult us, but not necessarily before legislation is passed, as was the case with Bill 56: the ministry did not consult us and it landed in holy water.
We are treated the same way with respect to ratios and per capitas. However, there is never enough financing because our needs are not the same any more. One of our major requirements is language learning.
You know that the first immersion class was founded in a board I worked for. And I have to tell you that it was not a school board effort; it was a parent effort. The community put pressure on that school board and said that if they didn't want to make our kids bilingual, they were going to do it themselves. They paid for a teacher for an immersion year in kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2. It was a wealthy community, and they did it. Only then did school boards see the light, and then you had the research done by Wally Lambert, etc.
I would tell you
that our parents are as fervent today as they were back in 1964.