Thank you very much, Mr. Chair
I would first like to clarify the following.
There are already several committees looking at this. Some of my colleagues and I have met in the last month for the issue about WE. Several ministers have attended meetings, and actually the Prime Minister of Canada spoke about it too.
Fundamentally, when I look at my riding, the great riding of Orleans, the best riding,
and the most beautiful in Canada, I would like to tell my colleagues that, when people call us at the office, they talk about the precarious situation that businesses are in because of this pandemic, which we are still experiencing today. Around this table, for example, we are not all close together because we maintain the two-metre distance. Moreover, we wear our masks when we talk to each other.
Outside the walls of this beautiful House, important issues are still at stake. People in my community are telling me about them.
When they're talking to me, do you know what they're asking? First they ask, “Are my kids going to be safe at school?” They also talk about their businesses and the wage subsidy. I was so happy to see that the government actually extended it. We've had this collaboration.
This committee is supposed to focus on the importance of the official languages. Some of my colleagues have been doing that for years. A lot of work has been done to get support from everyone. The next national census will contain questions that are very important to us on this committee.
I'm going to read the amendment again, just to bring back the point that I was trying to make with it. I don't know if it's because it's an amendment by a Liberal that we feel threatened, but I will say to all of you that, actually, the amendment would examine the fear around the due diligence. This amendment would ensure that both due diligence and the contractual obligations are sufficient to ensure protection.
I have to say to members here, and to the rest of Canada, that sadly, kids across Canada
will never know about this program, because WE Charity, in the wake of the events we are familiar with, has released itself from its contractual obligations by withdrawing.
I'm going to read the amendment again, and I just want to make sure that my colleagues understand clearly that the amendment is for bringing in the context that I think our Conservative colleagues are trying to include, which is the importance of official languages inside any contract that the Government of Canada signs.
I'll read it in English.
That the Committee wishes to ensure that both the due diligence and contractual obligations are sufficient to ensure that any outsourcing of Federal Government programs or services requires delivery of programs in both official languages to the same level as if the Government had delivered the programs and services itself.
As we know, colleagues, several times over the years the Government of Canada has had to award contracts. In our committee, we must ensure that the contracts are respected.
The other part of the amendment says, “That the Committee study the language requirements associated with the outsourcing of federal government responsibilities and hold at least 4 meetings”—and I thought I was very candid in saying four—“on the subject and hear from relevant witnesses”. I hear the comments about the witnesses. You've listed some of them, but I always believe that witnesses should be discussed in subcommittee. The amendment ends with “and report back to the House on the issue.”
I would like my colleagues to reconsider their position. We want to improve the proposal in your motion, Mr. Godin and my Conservative colleagues. We hope to get your support again.