Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand why Mr. Godin is a bit uncomfortable. We're talking about the reason for Mr. Samson's amendment. It's specifically to determine our authority here in the committee. On two separate occasions, the chair's decisions have been challenged. Given our minority position, the votes have been against us every time.
I believe that Mr. Samson's amendment clearly proposes ways to end the debate and move on to the topic of francophone immigration, which has become a constant in rural areas. We have talked about this and reported on it. The amendment affects the whip, who can't make any decisions on committee membership. I'm the chair of the Canadian section of ParlAmericas, and some members belong to the Canada‑France Inter‑Parliamentary Association. Mr. Samson's amendment addresses certain aspects of our authority in the committee.
Clearly, any discussion on how to talk about French involves political games to win seats in Quebec. Remember that Mr. Drouin described the comments of the two witnesses as extremist. However, this week I asked another committee member to publicly apologize, but he didn't do so. Mr. Beaulieu described a member of the House of Commons as an extremist because the member is an anglophone. That's really unacceptable. That isn't even half of what Mr. Drouin did. Mr. Drouin said that, for a francophone, the comments were extremist.
That's why Mr. Samson's amendment matters. Quebec separatists or elitists have often made comments offensive to francophones, especially regarding northern Ontario. This has been said a number of times. We're talking here about measures that we can take as a committee. Mr. Samson's amendment addresses the steps that the committee can take. The committee can, through the chair, write a letter to an association. Mr. Godin's motion….
The committee doesn't have the right to ask for Mr. Drouin's resignation. This is purely political. The goal is to obtain votes in certain constituencies. I think that the Bloc Québécois isn't satisfied with its 32 seats and that it wants more. This is one way to do it. The Bloc will stir up nationalist sentiment. Why can't we work together? Francophones in Quebec and committee members have sent their children to English schools. Party leaders in Quebec's national assembly have attended anglophone institutions in Quebec.
Why can't we keep working together? This morning, a Radio‑Canada article talked about issues with post‑secondary education in French across the country. There are problems and studies to conduct, but here we are again.
We met during a break week and on a holiday Monday to discuss a purely political motion designed to help the Bloc Québécois win new seats in Quebec. For the Conservatives and their leader, this means burning everything. After all, there are about ten Conservative members of Parliament in Quebec.
However, as I said, you're spoiled in Quebec. You could pursue your studies in French. Mr. Samson's motion is a way to stop the debate here. The sole purpose of this debate is to obtain votes in Quebec, at the expense, again, of francophones outside Quebec.
We received a letter from a Franco‑Ontarian association, which clearly reflects the spirit of Mr. Samson's motion.