Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This motion was rejected by the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States for precisely the reasons just mentioned by Ms. Dancho.
We've just had an instance of Ms. Dancho proposing an amendment to Ms. Chabot's motion, and we never heard anything about the clerk sending everyone an email containing the English and French versions of the amendment. And it's difficult for the clerk to translate such proposals herself.
The current process already states that motions requiring prior notice of 48 hours must be translated.
As for our committee, it's up to the chair to ensure that everyone has properly understood the motion or amendment before moving on to the vote. If a member of the committee has not clearly understood the meaning of a motion or an amendment, the member should point this out and request a translation. This process has worked well so far and I don't think it's necessary to adopt this motion.
If we begin to see problems arising as a result of motions or amendments being voted on without being properly understood, then I could see why such a proposal might be useful. However, in view of the motion's wording, I think that it would slow down our work unnecessarily.
Perhaps Ms. Chabot could have another look at the matter and decide whether the motion is really necessary. Given the current wording, I would have to vote against it, because it's too onerous.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.