Official Languages Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Oh, my God, Mr. Godin! Do you really want to have that discussion? As you know, that's not at all what we're talking about today. I'm really disappointed with your attempt.

Once again, the Conservatives want to play political games instead of talking about content. I've already raised the issue of political games. As parliamentarians, we follow the rules, we do the right thing. I've already spoken about this. I'm disappointed to hear the Conservatives once again talk about something other than the case of one of their members who insulted francophones and French in the House. I hope we can get back to the substance of the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before I address your point of order, Ms. Ashton, I'm going to listen to Mr. Lightbound's.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I want to echo Ms. Ashton's concerns. I don't know exactly what he's referring to, but I see that Mr. Godin is engaging in personal attacks. I know Mr. Godin. I know he's better than that. I urge him to show a bit more judgment when Pierre Poilievre's office tells him what to say in committee. He's capable of much better than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Lightbound and Ms. Ashton.

The point of order is entirely relevant. The committee is debating a motion. Ms. Ashton was referring to that motion and the fact that we were running out of time to hear from valuable witnesses for our study on the education continuum. She was suggesting that we proceed to the vote so we can get back to that study. Her comments pertained to Mr. Iacono's motion.

Please, then, Mr. Godin, stick to the debate on the motion.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I'll do more than that, Mr. Chair. I'll withdraw my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you. That is much appreciated.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Earlier, Mr. Chair, the member was saying that it's important for the Standing Committee on Official Languages to hear from witnesses for its education continuum study. Obviously, we are all parliamentarians, politicians, and we engage in politics.

However, Mr. Iacono's motion victimizes organizations that work tirelessly, day in and day out, to teach young people French, and I think they deserve to be heard. He knew full well the consequences of proposing his motion, and I think he's playing a very partisan game. Unfortunately, the debate on the French language is turning into a game of partisan politics, and that is not in the interest of francophones.

Now, Mr. Chair, I want to go over the sequence of events, as my fellow member did earlier, because he said things that were not true, in my opinion. On October 24, 2024, Mr. Brock turned to the Speaker of the House of Commons and said this:

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up, time is up and now corruption is up. GC Strategies, a two-person company working from a basement, started scooping up government contracts like candy just weeks after the Prime Minister took office: $20 million for doing nothing on the failed arrive scam and $100 million in total in government contracts. If that does not scream corruption, I do not know what does. Will the Liberals get our money back?

My fellow member Mr. Iacono said that Mr. Brock was addressing Mr. Duclos, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, which is false. He was addressing the Prime Minister, but Mr. Duclos rose to answer. So far, so good.

Then the Speaker, Mr. Fergus, recognized Mr. Duclos, who said this:

Mr. Speaker, you also could have said it in French, because I am going to say something in French that my colleague has already heard several times in English. He knows perfectly well that the Auditor General is independent, that the RCMP is also independent, that both of those organizations are doing their job, and that we will always be there to help them do it.

That brings us to the crux of the matter, when Mr. Brock said, “Mr. Speaker, my question is in English, but I digress.” Never did he clearly or specifically ask the honourable member Mr. Duclos to answer in French. What he said was neither appropriate nor necessary. It was unacceptable. Like my colleagues, I've already said that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Brock proceeded to make the following statement:

Mr. Speaker, Liberal corruption is on rinse and repeat. The Auditor General is investigating $100 million in contracts awarded to GC Strategies, a two-person IT company that did no IT work….

Some heckling ensued in the House of Commons, and the Speaker of the House stepped in to call the members to order. He then pointed out that questions can be asked in English or in French and that questions can be answered in English or in French. He then asked the member to start from the top, but he did not ask the member to apologize.

Later, at about 3:15 p.m., Mr. Boissonnault said, “Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very important to note that we have seen a blatant lack of respect in the House for our—” It was presumably a point of order. Heckling again ensued. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Fergus, rose and called to order all the members in the House, saying that he had already made a statement on the matter during question period. The Speaker did not ask Mr. Brock to rise.

That tells me that the matter is settled.

I don't want to impute motives to Mr. Brock, but he probably realized that he had made a mistake. That is what I gathered. He rose and humbly said this: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in relation to the introduction of my second question, the question was originally in English. I was unable to hear the minister's response because of commotion in the House. My volume was not working correctly on my earpiece. That is why I made the reference. Clearly, I recognize that every member in this House is entitled to ask questions and respond to questions in both official languages.

That last sentence is, I think, the one that matters most to us.

The Speaker of the House said that the matter was settled. He intervened, he did not ask anyone to apologize, and Mr. Brock rose and, in my opinion, humbly apologized. That's how I took it.

The Speaker stood again and said:The hon. member for Brantford—Brant raises a very interesting point, which is that when people take the floor, referring to the conversation that is happening right now between the member for Pickering—Uxbridge and the member for Lakeland, we cannot hear what is going on if there is too much ambient noise caused by people speaking out of turn. This is a very important point.

The member for Louis‑Hébert and my riding neighbour, Mr. Lightbound, then rose and made the following remark: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Brantford—Brant is clearly trying to deny what he did, but everyone in the House knew what he was trying to do. He intimated that the member for Québec should not answer in French. He should apologize. That is the kind of condescension that—

The comment ends there. That was the honourable member's assessment. I cannot say whether it's right or wrong, but I had a different take.

The Speaker of the House, Mr. Fergus, responded to Mr. Lightbound's comment as follows: “The Chair has heard enough on this matter.” The issue was therefore settled.

As far as I'm concerned, the Speaker clearly saw what happened in the House. That is his role, and he enforced the rules. What's more, despite the obvious attempts by the party across the way to get an apology, the Speaker ruled. He refused to ask the member to apologize. He said that the matter was settled and that it was time to move on.

I would like to point out that, from time to time, the Speaker considers it necessary to ask a parliamentarian to apologize. If the Speaker does not ask the member to apologize, it means that the Speaker does not consider an apology to be warranted.

I would like to go back to January 30, 2024. That was the day when yours truly rose and asked the following question:Mr. Speaker, again, this government is spreading disinformation.The member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine is also misleading the House. She should worry about her own region. The Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands are grappling with an unprecedented housing crisis. Members do not have to take my word for it. This is coming from Ambroise Henry, the director general of the Groupe ressource en logements collectifs, the communal housing resource group in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.What is she actually doing to help the people of the Magdalen Islands find a solution for housing?

The Speaker, Mr. Fergus, then rose and said: I often have a hard time hearing the members on the far side of the room. I would ask the member for Lac-Saint-Jean to be quiet when members are asking and answering questions. The hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Ms. Lebouthillier then rose and gave the following response:Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I would say to my colleague across the way, who tells us to get off our islands, that we have indeed left our Magdalen Islands and that Magdalen Islanders have gone all over Canada. These are people who are involved in their community. If he has a backbone, he will stand up and apologize to Magdalen Islanders.

I didn't understand her answer, but that's personal. In the House, the member asked me to apologize—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

How does this relate to the motion before the committee?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I'm talking about apologies, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brock is being asked to apologize. I described everything that happened and the fact that the Speaker ruled that the matter was settled.

Now I am describing another situation in which the Speaker did ask a member to apologize. That is the idea behind my argument and the point I'm making about the Speaker and apologies. Now don't ruin the ending, because I haven't finished—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm trying to see whether you're drawing a parallel with a similar situation that would have involved Ms. Lebouthillier or a similar motion that would have been proposed in another committee.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

No. I'm talking about the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

All right.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

My argument pertains to the Speaker's judgment.

I'll get back to the parallel I was making. The Speaker said this:Members know full well that they cannot impugn the reputation of another member. I invite the minister to withdraw her comments about the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

What did Ms. Lebouthillier do? She rose and said, “Mr. Speaker, I apologize.”

Therefore, this is akin to casting doubt on the Speaker's judgment, a Speaker who was selected by the Liberals, who have a majority in the House—or nearly, with the complicity of the NDP. Now they have a majority because they were able to get one of their own elected as Speaker.

Again, the Liberals are questioning the Speaker's judgment. They are bent on asking us to make one of our members, Larry Brock, apologize.

This is quite something. We're dealing with it right now in the House with respect to a question of privilege.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a minute, Mr. Godin.

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I'm just trying to understand what Mr. Godin is saying. A Liberal minister apologized to the House. That refutes his argument that Mr. Brock doesn't want to apologize to the House. I don't see how the Speaker's judgment is relevant when a minister has already apologized.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I understand what you're saying, Mr. Serré. I don't have to try to understand at this point, as long as Mr. Godin is debating the motion. That is what he's doing by drawing a parallel between what is happening here and another event. For that reason, I'm going to let him continue.

I won't comment or pass judgment on what you're saying, Mr. Godin. That is not my role. I'm going to let you speak, because you are debating the motion.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I want to say is that Ms. Lebouthillier apologized because the Speaker asked her to after recognizing that there had been some impropriety in the House of Commons. The event involving Mr. Brock that we are discussing today also occurred in the House of Commons. Did the Speaker recognize the impropriety? Not at all. If he had, he would have asked Mr. Brock to apologize. That is my understanding of what happened. There has to be some consistency.

When my colleague raised a point of order, I was saying that the Liberals are once again calling into question the judgment of the Speaker of the House of Commons. We are in the same situation now as with the question of privilege raised in the House of Commons. The Speaker ruled that documents had to be tabled, but the Liberals don't want to do that. They are defying his instructions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, please. Mr. Iacono has a point of order.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What is happening in the House of Commons now has nothing to do with the motion I introduced. So I would ask you to make sure that the member opposite sticks to the motion and its contents.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will nonetheless let Mr. Godin speak. We do indeed have to stick to the essence of the motion, but I can very clearly see the parallel he is trying to draw with another situation.

You may continue, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems now that the Liberals do not recognize that Mr. Brock published apologies, in French and in English, after speaking in the House of Commons. So he did two things to acknowledge his mistake.

Nonetheless, the Liberals do not accept the member's apologies because they were not made in the House of Commons, even though the Speaker did not request that, which doesn't suit them.

On Mr. Brock's page on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, there is a message saying, “Thank you, Larry”, regarding his apologies. Do you know that comment was posted at 4:49 on the very day that Mr. Brock apologized? That comment was by the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos. The person directly concerned by my colleague Larry Brock's apologies thanked him for apologizing. I want to point out that he apologized in both official languages and that Mr. Brock acknowledged the right of every member of Parliament to speak French or English during parliamentary proceedings.

Nobody is perfect. I can give you a list of what the Liberals have done to show that they have neither the willingness nor the intention to protect the French fact in Canada, that is, French and English bilingualism in Canada. We could talk about the Governor General, but I'll stop here. I think people get the idea. We can come back to that.

That said, all members of the committee have received another indication of the Conservatives' good faith on the official languages. Mr. Chair, you received two letters that the clerk distributed this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Indeed, for the benefit of those following our proceedings, we did receive an official letter and an email.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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.