Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I really like my colleague's explanation.
As I mentioned, I too am new to the committee, and I too want to see if we can find a path forward. That is why I brought forward a motion that I think captures the two issues at hand. One is the importance of documents being translated in both official languages. On the other, obviously our colleagues have great interest in the Mosley decision. That's why I put forward the suggestion to have the two ministers who are responsible brought forward to come and testify here before the committee.
In those aspects, I am in support of the path forward. I was not involved in this committee and the incredible work you did and the meetings you had. I have read the documentation from all of the meetings that happened prior, and I did read the draft report that you're working on. I think if the goal is for this committee to do the work that we were mandated to do, based on the legislation that actually created this committee, Canadians are expecting us to submit that final report.
I believe we are there. I don't believe we need to revisit having all of the same witnesses come back based on the fact that a court has found, with the Mosley decision, something that the Conservatives were of course in support of. I brought forward a compromise in terms of bringing a path forward and opening that conversation—I think we have 12 meetings scheduled between now and June—on how the committee can find a path forward in terms of addressing the question of translation and addressing the question of, okay, while outside the scope of the mandate of this committee, with respect to the Mosley decision, how do we get further explanation? I think it's the will of the opposition to hear from the two ministers who are involved.
That is why I put a good-faith motion forward. I'm hopeful that we can come to some common ground here and move forward in a positive way so that we can issue that final report.
Thank you.