Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Allow me to briefly explain the reason behind the motion.
Like all of you, I saw and read Judy Foote's response to the committee's report on the translation bureau. We worked very hard on the file, even to the detriment of other issues, because it was important to dig deep in order to deal with the issue properly.
Unfortunately, the government's response does not follow up on any of the recommendations made by the committee. It should be noted that the report had the unanimous support of every committee member and party. We worked very hard on the issue, and we produced recommendations based on the input provided by experts.
All you have to do is read a few newspaper headlines to see where things stand, for example, headlines proclaiming that the status quo will continue at the translation bureau or that the changes requested have been rejected.
Other organizations in the translation sector were also very disappointed by the government's response. We asked a lot of questions about governance at the translation bureau. Who is responsible for the state the translation bureau is in? We didn't have a chance to speak to Judy Foote as part of our exhaustive study, and I was quite disappointed, indeed. She sent us a response, but I think that, had she had been here during our study, she may have given us other answers and perhaps paid closer attention to our recommendations.
Important issues were also raised regarding reinvestment at the translation bureau, particularly in terms of succession planning. We did not get a response on that matter, either. I think the push to cut 140 translator positions in 2017-18 is still on. That worries a lot of people.
Therefore, we would like some answers. As I said last time, I'm prepared to work on the issue as a team because it's an effort we worked on together, as a team.
That is the reason I put forward this motion, and I am ready to discuss it and make any changes the committee considers appropriate.