Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad we're having this discussion. It's an important one. I want to simply let folks, members, and Canadians know the reason why the “summary of evidence” not “be included in the draft report” was originally put in here. We've been informed by the table officers that the House of Commons cannot translate more than eight pages a day. We're working on a really tight deadline. We have until the 21st.
Here's the good news. My colleague Mr. Proulx had a conversation with the Clerk of the House, Ms. O'Brien, who informed him they are prepared to waive that rule. They will put all of the resources necessary into translating this text by Monday morning. So despite all the aspersions cast and all of the ghosts that have been divined by Mr. Young and others, the only reason this was put in here in the first place was to try to make the work of the drafters easier and more time-effective so we can get this done by Monday.
We are certainly prepared to entertain amendments to this motion, as we said yesterday. I said it openly here. We said it in the media. I say it again today. There are no ghosts. There's no question here of limiting debate. We've just had three full days of debate. We have all kinds of information in the public realm. If Mr. Young doesn't know, this has all been broadcast on TV. The transcripts are all available. It's all over the Internet, and the paper material is being published. So it's all available for any Canadian who wants to look at it and make up their own mind.
I would be prepared to entertain a friendly amendment, whether it's from Mr. Paquette in the Bloc, someone from the Conservative party, or Mr. Martin over here, that addresses this question of summary of evidence so we can get on with our job.
I implore my colleagues not to cast aspersions where they simply don't exist.