I am against the Bloc Québécois's motion because we have interpreters for a reason. They interpret the committee's discussions. We all saw them in action today when committee members were proposing amendments.
Part of our role is to have free-flowing discussions about committee business. I would remind members that speaking more slowly is what helps interpreters to do their jobs. We've all been guilty of speaking too quickly at some point. Unless members feel the measure will help the committee carry out its work, I do not think it's necessary to provide amendments and motions before the committee discusses them. Although well-intentioned, the motion is unnecessary because the interpreters do excellent work. They are more than capable of making sure every committee member understands what's going on during the meeting.
That does not prevent a member from requesting a break in order to better understand a motion, to read it over, or even to ask the clerk to rewrite it to make it acceptable. That was done when we were meeting in person, so it remains an option. The committee members are very open to that sort of thing.
However, I think imposing requirements on motions brought forward by members will impede the committee's work.