You received correspondence from two sources. We will not talk about the one from Ms. Thomas, who duly apologized, it must be said. I think my colleagues here are more interested in the one from Mr. Brock, the Member for Brantford—Brant.
I will read out his letter. It is addressed to René Arseneault, the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6. Mr. Arseneault, it has come to my attention that a Liberal motion is currently blocking the important work of this committee.
It is indeed very important work. My motion was adopted here, by all political parties, for the committee to conduct a study on the education continuum, from early childhood to postsecondary education. We included postsecondary education, which we had already begun to study. It will be in the report. So this is very important work.
Mr. Chair, a few days ago, you and I attended the annual meeting of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, in Charlottetown. People were glad that we are conducting this study and wanted to contribute. That is why we planned 12 meetings. Now we have to deal with the government's petty political games and calls for apologies that have already been made three times.
The letter goes on to say: The motion requests my formal apology, which I have already made, for the remarks I made in the House on Thursday, October 24, 2024. The apologies I have already given on October 24 remain the same: “I want to apologize to Minister Duclos and all my colleagues for my comments in Question Period today. Every Member of Parliament has the right to speak in the official language of their choice; my comment was inappropriate, and I am sorry.” Please convey my apologies to the minister and other members of the committee.
So my colleague apologized once again.
I want to go back to something that was said here. During the committee's discussions, we talked about the situation involving the MP Francis Drouin. I recall that the committee's work was blocked for seven meetings, if not eight, because he said a witness was “full of shit”. We then requested that he no longer serve on this committee. In September, the committee resumed its proceedings and Mr. Drouin said goodbye. We welcomed Mr. Lightbound to replace him, and I am very pleased to see him here among us.
Last week, Mr. Lightbound made some remarks about the Drouin saga—let's call it that. This is what he said: We're therefore debating it as long as [the amendment] is in order. It is quite similar to the one the committee just put to a vote, after all. I'd like to say a few words about what the member just said [he was probably referring to Ms. Gladu]. I have enormous respect for her, and I think she is one of the voices of reason in the House and certainly at this committee. She said it was vindictive and small-minded, but I'd like to remind her of something. Even though she and I were not on the committee, in the case of Mr. Drouin—about whom Mr. Godin spoke to us at length—after he apologized repeatedly [that isn't true: He apologized just once, here at the committee], the Conservatives practically wanted him tarred and feathered. That's barely an exaggeration.
I like the image Mr. Lightbound used. My colleague Mr. Brock did nonetheless apologize three times: once in the House of Commons, once on the platform X, where Minister Duclos thanked him, and once in the letter that was tabled today.
What more do the Liberals want? Do they want to play political games or do they want us to proceed with the work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and continue our study on the education continuum?
I think it is important to draw a parallel. Are we going to hang Mr. Brock? Will he be taken to the public square and whipped? Is that what the Liberals want? My colleague has apologized three times, in a manner of his choosing, but the Liberals will not accept it. Honestly, I think they are being stubborn and it is unfortunate.
Now, I don't know if I will go there. Give me two seconds.