Yes, Chair. I'm being very cautious about not being repetitive and being very clear with what I'm speaking to, which is clause 15.
To answer Paule's question, I would like to make it clear that it is a Government of Canada document. It is a good question why such an important document, dated 2003, is available only in English. It is very strange. It is not the Government of Canada's normal way of doing things. That was one of the questions I wanted to ask today. First, they said that it was a completely open and public document. So the public should be able to have access to it. But a Government of Canada document written in one language only is clearly not public.
That was my next question. Reference was made to this document's being available to the public. It's a document that was prepared for CNSC, which is an organization that does all its work in both official languages, but it was prepared only in English and did not appear on any websites.
Chair, I'm focusing on this today because it's one of the critical pieces the government used to craft the legislation that's in front of committee. Why this wasn't presented to committee on the first day that we heard this bill, when we had government officials in front of us, is a little strange. Now we have it at essentially the eleventh hour, and we're in clause-by-clause consideration. It appears in only one language, which we also, out of respect to Madame Brunelle, find very irregular and not correct, yet the committee members are being asked to vote on these clauses with one of the most essential pieces of information appearing only now.
You suggested to me that I was being repetitive, but I'm trying to understand something. A document that the government itself commissioned made two recommendations; the government ignored both those recommendations. I'm trying to understand why. I have not yet received an answer as to why.
