Mr. Généreux, thank you for your question; I have great respect for you.
What I said was that the Canadian courts have already recognized that there are not only inequalities but also differences between francophone communities outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.
An anglophone living in Montreal is not in the same situation as an anglophone living in Gaspésie or Quebec City. Similarly, the situation of francophones outside Quebec is very different depending on whether they live in northern New Brunswick, where the committee chair comes from and where French is the majority language, in northern Ontario, where Mr. Serré lives, or in British Columbia, where Mr. Dalton and Mr. Vis come from.
However, according to the courts, substantive equality is possible. We are talking about legal asymmetry, where the differences necessary to achieve equality under the act could be applied.
This is not the only element of Mr. Beaulieu's amendment that I object to. This amendment seeks to remove a lot of text. For example, it talks about supporting the vitality and development of the two official language minorities. We want to support both minorities, as well as enhancing their vitality and supporting their development. This would be the first time that federal legislation recognizes that French is the common language of Quebec. It is the official language, but there is no legal definition of the common language.
So I have several other objections. However, since the courts have already interpreted the Official Languages Act, this could advance the fate of the two official languages. This does not mean that we should not encourage francophone immigration. We have no other choice. However, it should not mean taking away privileges or rights and letting a minority believe that the provincial government has the power to decide everything.
That was my point of view, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.