The problem is, there's a contradiction between the two points. The first point is to ensure the protection of minority communities with regard to access to education in their mother tongue. The second point is to promote bilingualism across Canada.
The trouble is that, in my region, for the Franco-Ontarian community, it's very important to have access to services in French. In terms of bilingualism, we are talking about the rights of anglophones to have education in French. Those are two different things.
My suggestion is to limit the study to the issues of protecting the rights holders to receive an education in a minority language and protecting the identity and culture of members of the official language minority communities, period.
Then you're guaranteeing that in Quebec, for the anglophone community, it's about their education. In Saskatchewan, it's the francophone community.
In my region, it's the franco-Ontarian community. When we talk about promoting bilingualism, then I'm having to say to all of my anglophone school boards where we don't have enough teachers in French, and all that, that there are different realities. I think it becomes too complicated.
It's my friendly amendment to stick with point (a) of the motion. It's a very focused study. Then if we want to do a study on bilingualism, that's a whole other context. We are doing two contradictory things here.
My friendly amendment, if it's accepted, is just to drop point (b).