In fact, part VII of the Official Languages Act, which is the main piece of legislation related to our committee, deals with the support and vitality of francophone communities, and that includes diversity across sectors. There are various groups that represent Canada's francophonie. In my opinion, that also includes LGBTQ+ communities, which are sometimes overlooked in some of our studies. They don't have the same organizational network or network of community associations as some other groups across the country. I'd say that, historically, the committee has heard from fewer witnesses from those groups. That may be a blind spot in the work we've done so far.
That's why the motion proposes a maximum of three meetings: We recognize that the committee's agenda is full.
The motion talks about inviting “witnesses with specific knowledge about the activities of Francoqueers”. We could also write about the “francophone LGBTQ+ community”; we can review the wording and discuss it. The objective is precisely to shed some light on the challenges and see whether, as a federal government, there is a need to better support that. It can also be useful, in the context of the 2028–2033 action plan for official languages, to find out if there is anything we could do.
It's more about better understanding needs and realities. We also have to take into account the fact that it's three meetings. We're not talking about devoting a dozen or so meetings to this subject.
It's more along those lines, Mr. Godin.
As for Mr. Beaulieu's comment, I'd say that we are open to changing the vocabulary, as long as we remain within the Canadian francophonie. It's not a broad study; it's really a study focused on the Canadian francophonie. That's where the focus is.