Mr. Speaker, we support Motion No. 3. I understand this brings the French text into line with the English text.
However, we have a more difficult problem with Motion No. 4. Although I certainly sympathize with my colleague from the Bloc that the French part on material harm does not translate and therefore needs some clarification, material harm in English has a very precise meaning in law. It is a stand-alone section. It does not need to be defined any further. Instead of material harm, it would now mean that material harm means more than harm that is negligible, immaterial or trifling. It becomes almost silly in English.
If there is some way to resolve that I would not have a problem. But as it stands, if it is not resolved, then we will not support Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6.