Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have eloquently demonstrated that the Conservatives do not wish to hear opposition voices. The Conservatives have cut funding for women's advocacy groups and are hindering the development of cultural expression.
One powerful example of what my colleagues are talking about is the court challenges program, which the Conservatives abolished and which made it possible to defend those who initiated charter challenges of government decisions. Women, as well as minority linguistic communities, often used this program. However, the Conservative government does not like to be contradicted. It is anathema to them.
The court challenges program was abolished because, according to the Prime Minister, the government does not need to pay lawyers. Community groups disagreed, went to court and then what did the government do? It paid its lawyers in order not to pay others. We must admit, that is quite something.
The Commissioner of Official Languages was right to take the government to task over this decision. All the reasons given by the government still leave us scratching our heads. Why would the government take issue with the fact that groups want to defend their interests under the charter? Why does the government have a problem with its decisions being challenged? It is a question of ideology.
The government would prefer that the Standing Committee on Official Languages not sit rather than allow it to study the court challenges program. This government does not like democracy. It puts up with it, but it would prefer to do without. It would like to do as it pleases. It is a minority government right now, but just imagine if it were a majority government.
Francophone minorities, official languages and so on are problematic. They are not a priority. The armed forces transformation model is another example that speaks volumes, as are the appointments of unilingual senior public officials and the decision to appoint a unilingual anglophone as Minister of Canadian Heritage. We know she was taking French classes, but we also know that she is totally disconnected from the real lives of francophones and Quebeckers.
Clearly, when it comes to official languages and protecting francophone minorities, this government is more of a hindrance than a help. The Prime Minister can start as many speeches as he wants to in French, but we will not forget that in 2001, in the language of Preston Manning, he said this:
As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.
He is not in a good position to be teaching Justin Trudeau a lesson, even though Justin Trudeau is scarcely any better. It is absolutely clear that for the Conservatives, bilingualism is an expense. Communities have every reason to be concerned. It is time to remind this government—which wants to reduce the proportion of francophones in this House by increasing the number of seats for Ontario and Alberta but not for Quebec—of the importance of communities to the future of Quebec and Canada.
My question is for the minister. Does she agree with what the Prime Minister said in 2001, that “bilingualism is the god that failed, that it has done nothing for unity or fairness and has cost Canadian taxpayers millions”?