I think so highly of my colleague Mr. Généreux that I would just like the chance to respond briefly.
It's true that the act will be reviewed in five years. However, five years is a long time when people lose rights. My questions have to do with the current law, Bill 96. If we support and respect these choices, then we respect the use of the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive manner to take away people's rights so they can't go to court for redress. That's already provided for.
Who will be entitled to services in English? That's my question. We in the federal government don't want to have to ask Canadians if they have a card that gives them access to English-language education or to federal government services in English. That's not the federal government's choice. It's the current choice of the Quebec government through Bill 96.
I can provide examples of things in the current version of Bill 96 that I feel go way too far. We're all for French being promoted in Quebec and in Canada. We all want to improve the situation when it comes to the French language. However, Quebec's anglophone community is not responsible for the situation because it's entirely distinct from the anglophone community in the rest of Canada, which is responsible for it. Therefore, taking services and rights away from Quebec anglophones doesn't help francophones in Canada. I believe the community should get behind that philosophy from day one.
We want to protect and promote French, but attacking Quebec's anglophone community is not the way to go about it.
Thank you.