Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that I understand the members' argument about the need to do things efficiently during a meeting and to propose amendments orally. I don't disagree with that. I see their point.
Yes, this is a bilingual country, but it's also important to recognize the reality. Mr. Gourde and I are the only French speakers taking part in today's meeting. Mr. Fergus is fluent in both languages, but that isn't the case for everyone.
You need to understand that it's not just about pieces of legislation. The fact of the matter is that French-speaking members are victims of their language, victims because they speak French. It's fine when members propose simple amendments like the ones this morning, but substantive motions tend to be complicated. Language is nuanced, so when a motion is written in both official languages, it ensures committee members have a solid understanding of what they are voting on. I really cannot see why anyone would object to having to put forward a substantive motion in both official languages.
I know members who do not speak English, so when someone proposes a substantive motion that is five, six or 10 lines long and it is simply translated by the interpreters, problems can arise, especially given the issues we have with sound from time to time. I've had an experience where an English-speaking member moved a motion in good faith, but the interpreter rendered the exact opposite of what was in the motion. I was about to vote against the motion when the clerk told me that he was going to translate it himself and send it to me in writing. Naturally, that completely changed my vote.
We claim to have a bilingual Parliament, so we should act as though we do. As a francophone, I want my English-speaking counterparts to have a written version of what I've put forward so they fully understand what I mean. That way, the committee can engage in an intelligent debate. Members always have pros and cons to bring to the table, and that enriches the debate.
It is somewhat surprising that members would want to prevent someone from having a clear understanding of something that is being proposed. I repeat, I am referring mainly to substantive motions.
You were opposed to my motion when it came to amendments, so I'm fine with amending the motion. I'll leave it there.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.