Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in this debate because I also was a member of the special joint committee on linguistic school boards.
What the Reform member seems to be saying is that the witnesses who appeared before the committee did not have a good understanding of the issue. Bill 109 on public education also had to do with the repeal of section 93. The people who came to testify knew that the creation of linguistic school boards also entailed debating the abrogation of section 93. So he should not be saying such things about the witnesses who came to testify in Quebec before the various committees. People have been talking about this issue for 30 years, and what is at the heart of this debate is the amendment to section 93. So I cannot understand why someone would rise and say that people are being tricked.
When Minister Marois came to testify in committee, I asked her the same question, because consensus and consultation were always concerns of the committee. It was important to ensure that people knew exactly where we were heading with this. Repeal of section 93 is an issue that people have been talking about for 30 years. A dozen consultations and legal procedures went nowhere or were declared unconstitutional.
So I have difficulty understanding how my colleague from the Reform Party who has just spoken can question all this process that was undertaken in Quebec. This is the only way to ensure that the Quebec school system is properly managed and can deal with the reality of an English- and a French-speaking people. Also, children should not be penalized by a cumbersome and complicated administrative system.