I know that Mr. Doherty is entitled to introduce a motion, except that his is based on an untranslated document, and its structure relies on arguments drawn from that document. The study of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Western University campus, and the Lawson Health Research Institute isn't translated. I thought the committee was sensitive to the fact…
I'm well aware that the motion has been translated into French. However, all the arguments in this motion are taken from a document that has not been translated. I can't follow them if I haven't been provided with the document or scientific study in question.
The motion contains the words, “given the recent study”. Then Mr. Doherty advances his arguments. I can't verify that, and yet I'm being asked to give an opinion and to vote on the matter.
It seems to me that should be taken into consideration. Personally, I think that, if there's no precedent here, that's how this should be considered. It's never too late to do the right thing.
I think my rights are being violated because this limits my ability to join in the debate.