Mr. Chairman, given that this is a substantive issue, we must consider how the bill was framed by the proponent. Let's take Mr. Grafstein, for example; he drafted the bill in English and used the term “suicide bombings”. He knows what he wants.
However, the French translation uses the term referred to by Mr. Ménard, which is “attentat suicide” and the idea would be to use that term everywhere. Now if we rectify the translation… This goes back to what Mr. Murphy was saying earlier, when he was talking about his bilingual province… Supposing we come across what I would term a “typo”—in other words, that the term “bombings” was mistranslated. Would it not be better in that case to check to see whether we have to start the whole process all over again? I don't understand that.
The fact that we have a translation issue doesn't mean we have to go all the way back to the Senate. It's a translation issue; it is not necessarily a substantive issue. That's the important point. If Mr. Ménard's version is accepted, I think we may want to go along with the suggestion made by Mr. Brent, one of my colleagues, regarding the possibility of adding “attentats suicides à la bombe”. That could be a potential amendment, based on my colleague's position on this.