Thank you.
I want to repeat what my colleague so eloquently said. This is another attempt to water down the bill that has been introduced here. Quite honestly, I have heard no valid argument for striking the preamble. The commissioner said the same thing when he testified before us; that is to say that he had heard no valid argument from the government or anyone else that would justify striking it. He gave the same response when he left us: he still had not heard any valid argument that would justify striking the preamble.
I unfortunately have no choice but to suspect a lack of political will to promote bilingualism as it should be promoted. If one does not even dare reaffirm basic principles such as the importance of bilingualism in our country, if one votes against those principles and strikes them from the bill, what does that show?
The commissioner clearly said that the preamble had an interpretative value and that its purpose was not to provide a framework for clause 3 or anything else. It provides a little more material for legal experts and people who will have to interpret this act as part of their work.
The arguments heard to date are not valid. I am not the only person who has said so. Several stakeholders mentioned it before this committee. I find it extremely unfortunate that we have come to this pass and that we, all parties together, can no longer even affirm the importance that we attach to bilingualism. This is extremely disappointing.