Thank you very much.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you all today. I've been through a lot of these meetings. I'd like to begin by hoping that points of order can remain points of order—real, true points of order—not just interruptions, because that's been the case in the past.
Comments were made earlier about a superficial look at the francophone nature of this organization. I would agree there has been a superficial look, although not by the motion, but by the government in its lack of due diligence. Of course, it's just my first day, but anybody could pick up the mandate of this committee that says the Standing Committee on Official Languages shall include among other matters the review of and report on official language policies and programs.
It would seem like a very basic, generally accepted fact that a national program of this scope and of this nature would fall under a program. I think the revelations alluded to earlier by my friends down the way on some of the facts that have come out.... My interest in this particular motion is on the due diligence, the very basic and simple due diligence or lack thereof, because I think that at the heart of the WE scandal is the position of the opposition, and particularly me, that this is a question of whether or not the government did its due diligence in protecting the very basic rights of francophone Canadians across the country.
It's very germane to this mandate and it has also been noted that in yesterday's ethics committee meeting, the former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson stated that ancillary discussions or investigations, in fact, help put on the public record for the Ethics Commissioner additional information that could be germane to their investigation. I do believe that in the format of this committee and its mandate, this particular aspect of protecting the rights of francophone Canadians is germane to the investigation, and it is certainly about defending the rights of both official languages. I'm surprised there's even this much robust discussion about it because this is the mandate of this committee.
Again, to reiterate the fact that national public relations was called in at such a time leads me to call into question the authenticity of the claim that proper due diligence was done, because I can share with you that in my past work, both as a city councillor, somebody who sat on the Hamilton Community Foundation, somebody who distributed funds through our enrichment program, that if a program came purporting to represent both official languages—if you tried to apply for the Trillium grant or something of that nature—due diligence would be put in place to ensure that that was actually the fact. It would be part of the request for qualifications in the initial application.
I have a hard time believing that was the case, and if that is not the case, then it again begs the question around the political nature or interference into the awarding of this contract, or for lack of a better term, the term that's being used is “contribution agreement”.
I'm very keen to see if that is the case and if some of the shortfalls in due diligence may also fall under section 18 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which is the anti-avoidance clause. Is the hiring of national public relations part of the avoidance of even getting to qualify for a program of this size and scope?
Thank you.