Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Imagine that a majority of members on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources moves a motion for Ms. Stubbs to no longer occupy her role on the committee. It would be completely crazy. It’s true that I have been, and still am, frustrated by the comments of my Conservative colleagues on something that is a source of pride for us. I understand that the context is different than that of this committee, but the principle is the same. I remind my Conservative and Bloc colleagues, as well as Ms. Ashton, that if this motion were to go forward, it would create a dangerous precedent.
In committee, determined parliamentarians may ask ministers or other witnesses detailed questions, and maybe they are MPs we don’t like because our political interests are different. However, if we were to choose to present a motion for one of those members to be excluded from the committee and encourage the whips or other parties to exclude them, that would be completely crazy.
I believe the motion before us today is not reasonable. I repeat: It is a personal attack. Many articles appeared in national media that will help Canadians form an opinion of Mr. Drouin’s behaviour. As Mr. Samson and Mr. Serre said, Mr. Drouin apologized for his comments, which were problematic. I agree with the fact that the words used were not okay, but Mr. Drouin apologized. I don’t understand why the committee is still debating this motion. I don’t understand why members of the opposition want to continue this witch hunt.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I am very proud of Canadian farmers. I want to give you that committee’s perspective. I am, of course, very proud of your work, Mr. Chair. In general, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has a good reputation when it comes to working collaboratively, I think, and concentrating on what’s necessary to improve the state of the French language, but also English in some minority communities. In my opinion, the committee works well together.
At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, members have different opinions based on their political party. For example, Mr. Barlow is very determined in the House of Commons. He is a man of principle at committee, but he is also reasonable. Same thing goes for Mr. Perron, Mr. MacGregor and all the members of the committee. We have some political battles, but we always concentrate on people’s interests or those of Canadian farmers.
As an occasional member of this committee, I think it’s necessary to encourage all regular members of the committee to consider the interests of their fellow citizens and stakeholders, and determine if this activity is constructive in the context of preserving the French language.
Personally, I do not believe this exercise to be beneficial. Mr. Serré gave the point of view of Ontario’s Assemblée de la francophonie. I think the committee must continue its proceedings. At a certain point, I think stakeholders will see that this exercise is nothing more than an attack, that it is not constructive and that it does not serve their interests. The committee’s responsibility is to work in the interests of Canadian citizens and students, for example those in Nova Scotia who need access to high school French-language classes and more resources. We need there to be greater collaboration between provinces, territories and the government of Canada.
When I arrived in 2019, I did not have the ability to speak French well. However, I had access to the required resources and to encouragement, as well as having a connection with my colleagues. Today, I am a good example.
This motion will cool other MPs’ interest, including anglophones, who want to participate in the effort to promote the French language. I understand that Mr. Drouin is not an MP from Quebec, but he is very close to Quebec. He is very determined when it comes to the importance of the French language in Quebec. I think that forms an aspect of this context.
As we know, when a motion is submitted to us, it is impossible for us to study any other matters.
I will give all the committee members something else to think about: my Nova Scotian perspective. In Ottawa, in the House of Commons, it is very easy for me to converse in French with Mr. Samson, Mr. Godin, Mr. Généreux, Mrs. Kusie or Mr. Beaulieu. Usually, I watch the news in French on Radio‑Canada. When I come back to the hotel after a long day spent working for my fellow citizens, I am happy to watch the news in French. However, in Nova Scotia, it’s difficult to access French programming. When I am in the car, on the road between my office and my home, I normally listen to Radio-Canada, but those resources don’t exist in the region. It’s not the same context as in Quebec. We must consider Radio-Canada’s mandate in terms of the French language as well as the CBC’s importance in maintaining journalism in the context of algorithms and artificial intelligence.
It is especially important for people, for my fellow citizens, because I was going to forget to say that the riding of Kings—Hants is very special in the French context. Indeed, it contains the Grand-Pré national historic site and its church, an important site for us, but especially for you too, Mr. Chair, because you are an Acadian.
I will tell a story for all the people here and for Canadians who are watching our proceedings.
Grand-Pré is a national historic site. In 1755, the British Army and the colonial government, whose exact name I forget, declared Acadians persona non grata. At the time, Acadians were neutral and did not swear allegiance to the King of France or the King of England.
