Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank Ms. Ashton for her comments. I am reaching out to her. That is precisely our goal: to move forward with our work. We want to go back to the discussion we were having as part of the study on post-secondary institutions, when Minister Boissonnault appeared before the committee.
Allow me to contradict Ms. Ashton, in that Mr. Godin filibustered when he moved his motion two weeks ago, on Thursday, when the minister came before the committee for the study on post-secondary institutions. His motion was out of order, by the way.
On today's agenda is the study on the economic development of official language minority communities. We also have to consider a report. I would like to reach out to the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. We keep talking about filibusters. We need to conduct the work of the committee, rather than make personal attacks on a committee member, which the committee is not allowed to do. That's what Mr. Samson is trying to get at with his amendment. A parliamentary committee does not have the right to do that. That has never been done.
I am reaching out to Ms. Ashton from the NDP. I am reaching out to the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives so that we can just move on. We have the opportunity as a group to say that we do not agree with what Mr. Drouin said and then continue on with our work. That's the purpose of the amendment. That's what Mr. Samson is trying to do. Again, this is a real abuse of power by the committee. It's an abuse of power by three political parties against the Liberal minority. Through his amendment, Mr. Samson is trying to resolve the situation so that we can move forward, as I tried to do earlier with my motion. The other three parties said that they were challenging the chair's ruling again. This is really an abuse by the committee majority, which seems to be disregarding parliamentary rules.
The chair is constantly referring to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the green book, which is the committee's bible. However, the representatives of the three opposition parties on the committee have spoken twice, if not three times, against the chair's decision and the green book. That is why Mr. Samson wanted to put forward an amendment. It proposes that the committee be given the opportunity to write to the members of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF, to tell them that we do not agree with what Mr. Drouin said. There have been no further conversations on this within the other 18 international branches. There has been no mention of it. Mr. Drouin is a highly respected member of the Canadian branch of the APF.
At stake, on the one hand, is Mr. Samson's amendment and, on the other hand, are Mr. Drouin's allegedly extremist comments towards witnesses who are researchers at post-secondary institutions. Politicians do not decide which institutions receive money; a group of scientists does. That is not a decision for politicians to make. Mr. Bourdon's and Mr. Lacroix's comments were not really appropriate. Many francophones agree with Mr. Drouin's objection and comments. Mr. Bourdon and Mr. Lacroix are entitled to their opinion. I think Mr. Lacroix has made it clear that he is not in favour of immigration either. That's his opinion.
That is why Mr. Samson put forward his amendment. The comments made earlier by Ms. Ashton, Mr. Godin and Mr. Beaulieu…. We really need to start talking about the important things. Minister Boissonnault appeared before the committee. This morning, we were supposed to study the draft report on the economic development of official language minority communities. However, some people have decided, once again, to play cheap politics and cause havoc in the committee.
That is in fact why Mr. Samson moved his motion. Mr. Godin said that his motion was nothing personal, but it is very personal. The motion calls on the committee to remove one of its members, who made a mistake, has been very respectful and has apologized for it seven times. Mr. Samson's amendment offers a solution to the problem we have. We are ready to take responsibility, but once again, the opposition is just trying to play political games to get votes in Quebec, to the detriment of francophones outside Quebec.
Mr. Samson's amendment is a genuine attempt to solve the problem. The way the opposition wants to deal with Mr. Drouin's comments is unacceptable. He has apologized, and the matter is closed. Everyone, even Franco-Manitobans, wants us to get down to work.
In addition, Minister Roberge commented on the decline of French and the issue of social media. Who brought that up to the committee in front of the separatist witnesses who appeared? Mr. Drouin mentioned that English social media represented an international problem that the francophonie had to address. This is a really important issue that we have to examine. It is with that in mind that Mr. Samson is trying to find a solution, Mr. Chair.
We need to work toward solutions. We need to make recommendations and move on to our studies, not attack another member of the committee. The motion that was put forward is very personal. The motion says we should ask the whip to do something that has never been done before. In fact, as I mentioned at the last meeting, we could move our own motions.
Mrs. Thomas, from the Conservative Party, made a comment to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that should bar her from sitting on the committee. She should be removed from the committee because she told a minister to speak English. Come on. What did she do afterwards? She apologized. She made a mistake and she apologized. She apologized once before the committee, but she did not do so publicly, as Mr. Drouin did. At the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, a Conservative member asked someone to speak English, and there were no repercussions.
What are we doing in the case of Mr. Drouin, who described comments as “extremist”? Some members want him removed from the committee. What is happening today is unacceptable, Mr. Chair. That is why Mr. Samson is trying to find a solution through his amendment. This is quite simply a personal attack on a great defender of francophones in Canada and around the world, purely to make political gains and get votes. Bloc members don't think 32 seats in Quebec is enough. They want more.
On the Conservative side, Mr. Poilievre wants to change everything. He feels that Parliament is broken and all the committees are in chaos. I am currently sitting on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where we are trying to make the court challenges program permanent, but the Conservatives don't want that.
Mr. Samson's motion is really important because, once again, it seeks to prevent the committee from attacking a proud francophone and causing delays on important issues. On a number of occasions, Mr. Godin referred to “a friend”. What does he mean by that? Mr. Drouin is a defender of francophone communities, and these are personal attacks on a member of Parliament. It is unacceptable.
You may all laugh, but the motion that was put forward by the Conservatives and the Bloc to attack an individual who has apologized seven times is not acceptable. In fact, the opposition didn't even give Mr. Drouin a chance to apologize.
Mr. Samson moved an amendment because the opposition didn't even want the member to apologize to the committee. Political games were being played right from the get-go.
First of all, there was an attempt to prevent Mr. Drouin from apologizing. Second, Minister Boissonnault was here, and we didn't even….
It was absolutely a political game. I will support Mr. Samson's amendment, because we have to put an end to this debate and the personal attacks. We need to look at what the committee is allowed to do. The motion is out of order, inadmissible, and amounts to an abuse of the power by the opposition majority. This is not acceptable and it has to stop.
For these reasons, we should vote on Mr. Samson's motion and get back to what we had planned. This morning, we were supposed to consider our report on the economic development of official language minority communities. We should also look at post-secondary education, immigration and the decline of French.
We need to work together. I am starting to lose faith in this committee. We have worked together, but now we are playing political games and attacking a person, which is unacceptable.
Obviously, I will have more to say later. I would like to remain positive and reach out to the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. We have important things to talk about. We had a witness appear who was actually a Bloc candidate. We really have to think about credibility. However, he has the right to come and give his opinion.
Finally, I would like to add that I have mentioned twice now that a member of the committee has referred to another member as an “extremist”. That member had three days to apologize, but he didn't. Even Mr. Drouin didn't wait that long. Last week, I asked the member in question to apologize, but he has not yet done so, which is unacceptable. There is definitely a double standard at this committee.