I knew that we would agree, Ms. Chenette and I, and that one day we would be on the same path.
I'm looking at the description of intersectionality. Before going any further, I'd like to go back to what I was saying before. You can't pick just one group that doesn't have enough visibility; you have to be inclusive. Women are a big group to consider. They should not be a minority, but, unfortunately, even though society has made great strides, there is more work to be done to achieve equality between men and women. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I think that's reality.
Let me add this though. If the idea is to provide visibility to groups that are often not heard, we have the opportunity to include them in this study, even if it means increasing the number of meetings. That way we could ensure that these groups are based on sex, race, class, age, disability and sexual orientation.
I think we have a great opportunity before us, further to the initial motion by my colleague Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault. We are refining the motion and trying to see how we can advance the cause of our minorities. I think it is now warranted for the Standing Committee on Official Languages to address this and conduct a study on it.
It will then be up to us, the various parties, to prepare a list of witnesses and provide it to the clerk. We will then determine the number of meetings and decide whether we want to categorize the groups to ensure balance in terms of visibility. There's a whole mechanism that we have the responsibility to put into motion.
I think that Ms. Chenette brought up something interesting, and I want to amplify what she said by proposing this. It's not an amendment, Mr. Chair. It's an open and constructive discussion stemming from what my colleague said.