I'm going to weigh into the debate, because I have already seen this type of situation. I think it was on this very committee and it was either 2007 or 2008. We were dealing with a lot of documents, thousands of pages worth. At the time, certain members of the committee had expressed their wish that part of the documents not be translated. That didn't fly, however, because the fundamental right to obtain information in both official languages was upheld in the end. The committee lost an enormous amount of time due to systemic obstruction that went on for three or four meetings. In the end, we just waited to get the translations that were provided in due course and then worked with the translated documents.
It seems that we could draw out this discussion, but the result would no doubt be the same at the end of the day. The precedent proves that you have to translate all the documents. I am here today standing in for a colleague. I don't know how the committee wants to go about it, but it would be dangerous to create a precedent. Historically speaking, we have always translated all documents, regardless of the time that takes. This is what I wanted to say.