Given that the motion has been tabled and that we are no longer sitting in camera, I would like to point out to the mover of the motion that the translation of the words "réforme aux politiques, aux lois et aux règlements" is not acceptable. I do not need a reasonable translation; I need a true translation, unless Mr. Gerry Byrne can tell me that he understands the French that he has just written. I imagine he is the one who had to write the French version, because it was translated into English. That is my first major point.
I have a second important point to make and I'll tell you why it is important. If there's no agreement to support this proposal, then I want to know which of the two versions stands, under the interpretation rules.
If the English version stands, then I want to know exactly what it says. I will therefore consult my whip and my parliamentary leader who will tell me what this means in English, based on how it has been drafted. If, on the contrary, the French version stands, because the translation will have to be the version that is accepted... In fact, when we vote, the vote will be on the French version and the English version.
If there is a problem, how will you rule, Mr. Chairman? Will you rule in favour of the English version or the French version? You have a problem. We should therefore be consulting people who are much more knowledgeable than we are on this matter.
This is a substantive motion. It is very serious and very important. If it weren't, he would not be tabling the motion. It's very important. Therefore, those who wish to, have a right to understand exactly what this means, even if people say they understand, because if there's a problem, who will rule? Will you rule in favour of the French version or the English version? At some point you are going to have to rule. Therefore, the translation must be reliable and the text must be clear in both languages, which is not currently the case.
Therefore, we don't need a reasonable translation, a translation done by our interpreters who, in passing, are excellent. This is a legal text with implications. Therefore, if the two versions of this legal text are not consistent, then I regret to inform you that the motion, in fact, cannot be accepted, in its current form, that is. It has to be submitted to our whip or our parliamentary leader, who will then consider the issue and be able to advise us. We belong to the House. In fact, we have the authority of the House. That is why I am telling you that this is a substantive motion and not simply a procedural motion.