Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I put up my hand to clarify something for my friend Kevin. The motion he was seeking to amend was already adopted by this committee. We adopted it about a month ago.
There are two motions that Mr. Champoux has put forward today. The second one is absolutely fine and has been adopted at other committees. The one he is now putting forward has been rejected at all the other committees I've been to because of the feeling that it would stop the flow of amendments being put forward and the ability....
The interpreters do this work. They translate. The motion would put the clerk in the impossible position of having to translate something, be responsible for the translation and send it out to members when something comes up at the meeting, which is an impossibility for the clerk. It was rejected at other committees because it would make it very difficult to send something out in writing that came up at a meeting without somebody officially translating it. That's why it hasn't flown at other committees. I understand the reason for it.
With all due respect to Mr. Champoux, I don't think this motion works. The first possibility is that a lot of time may pass between the time an amendment is moved and the time we vote on it, because someone has to do the translation and send it to all the members. I am not sure who is responsible for doing the translation. The second possibility is that we may have a bad translation.
I prefer to oppose this motion, but I fully understand why you moved it, Mr. Champoux.