I can only surmise that Mr. Adler maybe didn't have his earplug in place for his translation and he may be suffering from the same problem I'm having with the information sent to us by the CRA in terms of translation.
Now, as a unilingual anglophone from Manitoba, I'm having a difficult time even following what the CRA's recommendations to us were, or the information given, because it was circulated in one official language, not two. Now, this is a problem, but if Mr. Adler can't see the relevance of the points that my colleague is making in order to protect the integrity of the government's budget framework, he would also have to argue against the relevance of the Minister of Labour ordering strikers back to work even before they go on strike because it's better for the economy. If the broad language of my colleague's motion is offensive to the member, then so too should the actions of the Minister of Labour be offensive when she cites the economy to run roughshod over the rights of working people to withhold their services in a legal strike situation.
I only raise this, Mr. Chairman, to remind you, with all due respect, that in our hands is placed a sacred trust, as chairs of parliamentary committees, to uphold due process and parliamentary procedure because that fine construct that is the Westminster parliamentary system collapses if we don't honour and respect process.
A mischief nuisance of relevance to interrupt my colleague's pattern of thought in developing the motion that he put forward, which was in order—