We were made to get along.
By amendment BQ-4, we want to correct the problems raised by Mr. Walsh and the legislative drafters, that is the problem of parliamentary privilege. When we attended the briefing for the introduction of Bill C-2, I raised this question, saying that it was all well and good in theory, but that it was unfeasible and unthinkable in practice.
I'll give you an example. All the citizens in my electoral district read the bill, and one of them observes that there's been wrongdoing under the terms of the bill. He has to go through the member, who has to determine whether or not his complaint is admissible, then swear an oath and tell it to the Commissioner.
If I remember correctly, none of the witnesses who appeared told us that this way of proceeding made any sense. The law clerk told us the same thing. Furthermore, we have a model that we can follow, that of the Commissioner of Official Languages. If a citizen sees that something isn't right, he can file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages.
First, we have to delete the stage of going through a member. I wonder whether a single member from any of the parties would tell one of his or her constituents that that person's idea makes no sense and that he or she considers it inadmissible.
Second, our population may include a number of pressure groups. Let's suppose pressure group B decides to send three people, five days a week, to the member's office to file a complaint. That may complicate our everyday work.
For all these reasons, I propose that we adopt the tested model of the Commissioner of Official Languages, that we eliminate the stage of going through the member and that we correct the points that troubled the law clerk from the House of Commons.
That's why the Bloc moves amendment BQ-4, which appears on page 25.