Mr. Speaker, I never said that we need a Hungarian language policy. I am saying that we do not need the Hungarian language policy. Hungarians will continue to retain their language and culture, despite the fact that we do not have a policy here in Canada.
My point is that it is not necessary to be so over protective of a language to the degree that it will be lost and forgotten. There are examples that it will never happen.
I never blamed Quebec for the mess we are in concerning bilingualism. I never once in my speech blamed Quebec. I blamed the federal government, prime ministers and the second tier, the bureaucrats who were hired to implement those policies.
I thank the member for the correction as to who initiated the Laurendeau-Dunton report, the B and B Commission, Mr. Pearson. He was a fine gentleman.
In terms of the Bloc's policy, I talked about territorial bilingualism and he indicated that it would not work. Here is the Bloc Quebecois policy. It calls for full and generous language rights to be extended to francophones living outside of Quebec and very few rights to be extended to anglophones living inside Quebec.
Where is the principle of equality there? That is avoiding it. "The logic of this asymmetry is that French is in danger of extinction in Canada". It is in danger of extinction in Canada? Seven million people speak that language and somebody says that it is in danger of extinction. That defies logic. It goes on: "It can only survive on an equal footing with English if it receives preferential, legal treatment".
Let us say that it was in danger of extinction and we felt that we had to do some extra work to ensure the language survived. What offends anglophones is that the separatists in their own province-not all Quebecers because the majority are not like this-will not give the equal treatment to anglophones living in that province. They tramp on their rights. That is what is wrong with the separatists and the Bloc view of bilingualism.