Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to add a few points to Mr. Lightbound's comments. First, since Mr. Brock's actions took place in the House, he should have apologized in the House. Clearly, an apology on the platform X is not an apology.
In a way, it's pure hypocrisy. When Mr. Drouin made a certain comment in this committee, he apologized at a meeting of the same committee. He did it in the media as well. He has apologized time and time again, but the Conservative motion has not been withdrawn. I find it very difficult to understand the total hypocrisy of the Conservatives here.
We must also remember the comments made to Ms. Lebouthillier by one of the Conservative members from Quebec, Mr. Berthold. He told her that she should speak English. We know Ms. Lebouthillier and how important her comments are. We are talking about a Quebecker who told a Quebecker to speak English. I think, as was mentioned earlier, there is a trend here. However, we can agree, accept the motion and continue our work on official languages.
Furthermore, I think that Mr. Généreux's comment earlier about the earpiece not working wasn't very convincing—and I'm being nice when I say that. In that case, it is possible to raise a point of order, which is often raised in the House, to indicate that the earpiece isn't working and that there is a problem with the interpretation. It's acceptable to ask for words to be repeated, and in the case of Mr. Duclos, those words would have been repeated in French.
I don't understand the argument that was made. So I'm just suggesting that we vote on the motion. These are really precedents that are included. The motion doesn't ask that we go back to the House, unlike the motion the Conservatives moved in the case of Mr. Drouin. We were talking about sending this motion back to the House, which would have needlessly encroached on its time. In this case, we are simply telling Mr. Brock to apologize to Mr. Duclos in the House. It's really simple to do. Then we should move on.