Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Boyer, I do not really understand your comment.
You are saying that the amendment we proposed gives rise to an obligation. As it now stands, the bill clearly states “is committed to”. The amendment that I proposed uses the same term. There is already an obligation there. It is not my amendment that is creating an obligation.
What I am saying is that we should do a count rather than just estimating. I do not want members imputing motives to me that I do not have. I think it is important to clarify what the official from Canadian Heritage said. My amendment does not create an additional obligation. It simply sets out a method, that of doing a count, which I think is better than estimating.
In that regard, I would like to read an excerpt from a report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was chaired by the hon. Denis Paradis at the time, on the enumeration of rights-holders. My colleague, Mr. Généreux, signed that report. Based on what was said earlier, we, in our role as legislator, likely made some mistakes and worded some things wrong. I will read the excerpt in question and then I will ask Ms. Boyer to tell us what she understands from it. It says, and I quote:
Nevertheless, witnesses were adamant that the short-form census questionnaire, which is sent out to 100% of the population, is the only format possible for enumerating rights-holders properly.
Mr. Chair, this relates to the comment you made earlier about the short- and long-form census. The entire population is being counted.
Ms. Boyer and hon. committee members, I am not the one saying this. It is written in a report that members wrote at the time, which was validated by the clerks and analysts and is part of Canada's history books.
I think that it is important to set the record straight, and that is what I just did. I have a lot of other things I would like to say, but I do not want to filibuster.