Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Bergeron, for raising this.
I don't see this particular motion so much as an issue of language as it is an issue of the ability of the committee to be nimble. There are times when issues are raised and the committee wishes to respond to them with a substantive motion. For example, this adventure, as it were, that we're on with the Public Health Agency of Canada started when, in the context of the motion on the meeting itself with the officials, I moved a motion that received unanimous support to ask the officials to report back by that Friday. That was done unanimously, so there was clearly no issue with it, but it was a case of our responding to live events and therefore verbally crafting motions on the fly that respond to something we're hearing from a witness.
We have all learned that it's a good practice to provide written notice whenever possible, and of course that's required in certain situations, when a motion is not related to the subject matter being discussed.
I think the practice has to be equality of languages, so if it's being stated verbally in one language, it has to be available verbally in both languages, and if it's being submitted in writing in one language and sent around, it must then be sent around in writing in both languages.
I don't see the value. I see some big risks in putting this additional stricture on the committee, and I think the focus needs to be on nimbleness and also preserving the principle of equality of languages.