I am going to support the resolution, but I want to make a clarification. I might commit a crime by saying this, but here we go anyway.
I can imagine that there are cases where it might not be impossible, but not very practical, to translate everything. That might be the case here. I was told that there were 40,000 pages, for example.
I'm not so pompous as to say that absolutely everything must be translated. But I was in the House when the report was tabled, and I was shocked at how it was done. We were caught a little of guard and were told that if we didn't obtain unanimous consent, we couldn't table the document. That's no way of proceeding. There should have been a consultation beforehand or advice sought from all the parties and members—the independents as well—to ensure that there was consent. It's a very important issue. Canadians and the House were waiting for this report.
There was no objection to the tabling of these documents because of the importance of the issue. But we must understand how this type of thing can happen, so that it doesn't happen again. I'm not saying that everything must always be translated. There might be exceptions in some cases, and I may have approved such cases in the past. This may be a similar case, but we'll see.
The fact that we weren't informed is unacceptable. That's why I'm going to support my colleague's motion, so that we can find out how this happened and why the government gave authorization to table a document that went against the standing orders of the House. I agree that the government sought unanimous consent, but it didn't try to obtain it first and inform others. That isn't right and we should avoid this type of thing in the future.