Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I just want to echo Mr. Caputo's remarks. I think everyone around this table will agree that all parties have decided to work together to conduct a rigorous study without filibustering, as this is truly a bill that deserves the committee's full attention.
However, when a schedule was proposed to us, we were never told that we would not have access to translation services to enable us to read the briefs. It seems a bit odd to tell the whole world that Canada can't afford to translate briefs—like the one from the Canadian Bar Association, for example—within two weeks. In my opinion, this is unacceptable. I understand that resources are limited, but when we want to speed things up to study an important bill like Bill C‑22, we need to make the necessary arrangements. It's a matter of prioritization. Not every committee is studying at an important bill like Bill C‑22.
In any case, I find what's happening now unacceptable and quite embarrassing. You will understand that I am a Quebecker and that I want Quebec to become a country, but if I were a Canadian, I would be very embarrassed to tell the entire world that we do not have the capacity to translate documents for the study of a bill that police officers have been waiting for for 30 years.
Ms. Saad, I'm not sure if I understood something you said correctly. I'd like to clarify this with you. You implied that the bill could be split. We could pass the first part of Bill C‑22, then discuss and debate part 2 in greater depth—the part that seems less viable or that appears to have less support from the public, civil society and even a professional association like yours. Did I understand correctly that you encouraged us to consider this approach, which could rally more support for part 1, since part 2 seems to pose more problems?