I would like to thank all three of you. I think you can see, by the length of the questions, that this topic is one that people feel passionate about. The comments I have heard today may be the most interesting ones I have heard since recently becoming a member of the Committee.
Ms. Lamarre, you just said that the numbers do not reflect people's reality. In English, there is an expression that goes:
“Figures lie and liars figure”. I mean no disrespect, mais
I am concerned that the figures you have given us, Professor Castonguay, may lead us to the wrong conclusions.
The problem I have is that your analysis leads us to a very stark and polarized anglophone-francophone reality, which would suggest perhaps that the existence of French would be stronger if we had only a Quebec and then a “Rest of Canada”.
What I'm hearing and feeling as a father of three kids in a French immersion school in B.C.--the lines are long, and it's hard to get into these French immersion schools--and what Mr. Julian was also saying is that in reality, French is so much stronger because of this large entity we call Canada, where the language is being promoted outside the province.
I have two questions that come from your evidence. First, we heard from you, Mr. Castonguay, that there's a squandering of a scarce resource if the francophone immigrants go outside the belt or outside Quebec. I would argue that this scarce resource is not only strengthening French but also encouraging other people who speak other languages to be sensitive to the importance and preciousness of French outside the belt.
Second, you said that anglo immigration to Quebec was proportionally double the francophone population, and I don't understand why that would be the case, given Quebec's unprecedented control over its own immigration.
I will first ask you, Madam Lamarre, to answer those two questions, and then perhaps Mr. Castonguay. I'm sorry we can't get everybody in because of time restraints.