I'm sure you will understand that, given the substance of the amendment my colleague seems to be proposing, it is difficult for a francophone to navigate this based on the translation.
Mr. Chair, I just want to point out how ironic it is for my Liberal friends to condemn filibustering in the House and resist shedding light on the purchase of a pipeline that is causing significant losses for the government, which is a matter of public interest in the House.
The foundational principle in democracy is that the debate and decision-making process happens in full view of everyone. I will never understand a political party that tries to throttle the amount of information given to the public. The purpose of the motion is solely and simply to have a debate in the House on an issue that was raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
I can understand my Liberal colleagues wanting to improve and amend the motion I tabled. However, my sense is that people are now trying to run out the clock and adjourn this debate. That's not what I want.
If my colleagues' goal is to introduce an amendment that would be incomprehensible to me so as to run out the clock, I find that objectionable. My understanding of what Mr. Jowhari said just now is that he is proposing an amendment that I would be unable to accept or reject because I don't have a good grasp of it via translation.