Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Beaulieu, but the connection is obvious.
I'm going to read the letter that Ms. Kusie, Mr. Godin, Mr. Généreux, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Beaulieu signed on May 10. I won't read the whole thing, but will keep to the final section for the time being. Have a look at the final paragraph. I know that all the committee members received it.
It's clearly about Standing Order 106(4) and asking that the committee be convened pursuant to the study on federal funding for minority-language post-secondary institutions “to respond to the actions of the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell”.
As I mentioned, it's the first question Mr. Godin asked the minister on Thursday, May 9, at 8 a.m. It was his very first question. Minister Boissonnault, a proud Franco-Albertan and a proud “franco-queer”, answered Mr. Godin clearly and explained his perception of the matter. We don't have access to the blues because the meeting was suspended. So we can't see the minister's comments, but he answered Mr. Godin's question fairly quickly.
After that, I expected Mr. Godin to discuss post-secondary education with the minister. Well, no, he instead immediately introduced a motion containing a single lengthy sentence about a proud Franco-Ontarian, Mr. Drouin. Its intent was clearly partisan.
I don' t think this was solely tied to Mr. Godin's intentions. I think that the Conservative leader has a great deal of influence over his MPs, as does the leader of the Bloc Québécois. Both are highly partisan leaders and I think they had a strong influence over their members.
Instead of asking the minister specific questions when he was here at 8:15 a.m. last Thursday, only five days ago, they decided to introduce a motion demanding the removal of the Member of Parliament from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and his resignation from the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie.
I could reread the motion that was introduced, but what we're talking about today, is re-inviting the minister to the committee, even though he was just here. I find that a bit… I'll refrain from using certain words. I can't decide whether it's “arrogant” or “hypocritical”, but I find it really hard to understand why we would come here from across Canada to study a motion to invite the minister when he was here last Thursday. The opposition members didn't ask him any questions at the time. Then they moved a motion whose purpose is to destroy the reputation of a proud Franco-Ontarian.
Speaking of proud Franco-Ontarians, I'm aware of the fact that this morning, we all received the letter from the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, telling us that we should move on to things that are important for the francophonie. The time has come. The linguistic insecurity problem is real. French is in decline in Quebec and across the country. And yet members of the opposition come here and launch a partisan attack on a Franco-Ontarian.
The minister already answered the question on Thursday. However, I heard some comments earlier and would like to respond to those. To begin with, we are not against the amendment. After that, with respect to Mr. Godin's motion, I would like to propose a minor addition. Lastly, in response to Mr. Beaulieu's question about whether the Liberals were in favour of the motion, I would say that we are not against having the minister come before the committee. Besides which, he was here last Thursday because we wanted him to appear.
We now need to take a co-operative approach and move on to what the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario asked us to do, which is to concentrate on issues important to francophones.
I am now proposing an amendment that I trust will be acceptable to all the committee members. The motion ends as follows: “and that the appearance take place within two weeks of this motion being adopted.”
Let's say that we were to adopt today's motion and request an appearance within the next two weeks. I think it's clear to those Canadians who listen to us and to the parliamentarians here today that the schedule in May and June is always a busy one. The busiest period for Parliament has always been the months of May and June. I suggest amending the motion to replace the two-week deadline with “by the end of business in June.”
I think this amendment might be acceptable to the opposition. I don't know whether all members would agree. We could make a minor change and replace the words “two weeks” with “by the end of June” or “before the end of business”. Business might end just before Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, a very important one for Franco-Ontarians. We don't want to be sitting in Parliament on that day. And, of course, it's important to the people of Quebec.
The minister's schedule is always tight, but then that's the case for all parliamentarians. It's a helpful amendment. I can see members of the coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives are speaking to one another. I hope they'll find my proposal acceptable.
