Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think it's unfortunate that we couldn't suspend proceedings for a few minutes. I think it would have been wise to take that time. I feel that we could have resolved all these issues and arrived at a consensus. I understand what Mr. Bélanger is trying to do. We accept the principle that every Conservative member has the right and responsibility to ask questions. We also want to have the same right, the same opportunity. We have those principles. There was also a friendly agreement among the great majority of the members here. I don't understand why the Conservative Party, while wanting to achieve that consensus, tried to withdraw it. I find that difficult to understand. That's why we wanted to take a few minutes, to talk things out and arrive at a consensus. I think that what was suggested met all those requirements, including the possibility of a second round for the Liberal Party. Some 30 or 45 minutes ago, we could have arrived at a consensus. Now, an amendment has been moved. The Conservatives have not spoken, but I have the impression that they're against the idea that only four out of six Conservatives would take the floor during the four rounds. Mr. Chair, I assume that's the case. The Conservatives have not stated whether or not they agree with that arrangement. Regardless, there are a number of good things about the suggestion. Mr. Chair, what can I say? That's the current situation.
I want to provide you with the facts because I think that's very important. At the beginning of the preceding Parliament, we had 37 MPs. Following the Winnipeg by-election, we had 36 MPs. We had the floor in the first round and once again later on. As you know, according to this committee's tradition, a fourth round is rarely held. We suggested pretty much the same arrangement the NDP had in the preceding Parliament. At first, we had 37 MPs and then 36 MPs. That's what was suggested to the Liberal Party, which has 34 MPs. I thought that was reasonable.
It is suggested that the Liberal Party have four opportunities to speak and the Conservative Party have only four opportunities. Obviously, that's unacceptable. If we voted on it, I don't think that approach would get the approval of the majority of the members around the table. We still have no consensus. What should we do, given that the amendment is not acceptable to most of the members around the table? There are two possibilities. We can continue the discussion.
Mr. Chair, I think that you discharge your responsibilities well.
As you rightly indicated, Mr. Chair, we could have talked things out. We could have simply forced the committee to vote. I think you said earlier that you wanted to adjourn the meeting anyway in a minute and a half.
I think that the best thing to do would probably be to focus specifically on resolving this issue while following committee procedure. Therefore, I will take a few minutes to raise some objections to this subamendment.
I realize, Mr. Chair, that in about one minute, you will use the powers vested in you as part of your new position. I want to congratulate you on being elected as chair. I have always admired your work in this committee. I think that you guide the committee very wisely. That being said, I want to continue, Mr. Chair, unless there is a point of order or you want to adjourn the meeting, of course.
So, I will continue speaking to this amendment.
I just wanted to congratulate you because you do a good job. You still have the right to adjourn the meeting, if you wish, because it is 10:45 a.m., unless there is a point of order, of course.
