Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have several points to raise. Firstly, what I suggested was to continue with our agenda. We are not about to launch new initiatives. We are suggesting that the agenda which was agreed upon by all members of this committee a few weeks, be respected. From the very beginning, we have been asking for this: that we abide by the committee's decision to hold meetings on the Court Challenges Program.
Secondly, we obviously do not know when the House is going to adjourn. There are rumours that it might be next week. We do not know this. We have to rely on the calendar we were provided with. Therefore, there would still be four meetings ahead of us. What I would then propose is that the commissioner be invited alongside other witnesses, so that we can hold a meeting and have several witnesses at once, and progress as quickly as possible. I would suggest that the commissioner be invited to meet us no later than next Thursday. That is the second point.
Thirdly, I insist that this committee hear from anglophone witnesses. Within the committee and elsewhere, there is a perception that this committee is concerned only with French language minority rights, and this is a good thing. But it must also be concerned with the rights of English-speaking minorities in Quebec, and give the public the impression that it is also concerned with the situation of anglophone minorities. I strongly hope that anglophone witnesses from Quebec also be invited to the committee to speak about the Court Challenges Program.
I would have a suggestion which might not please everyone but Mr. Nadeau has shown me a report, --which he cannot table because it is drafted in only one language, -- on the testimonies heard last week by members of the opposition only. I insist on this. Last week, we did not sit as a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, far from it. However, in keeping with my colleague, Mr. Luc Harvey's reasoning, if we do not want to hear from the same witnesses again, which is a possibility that I would like government members to entertain—we should read the document once Mr. Nadeau has tabled it in both official languages. Government members should read the summary and inform us as to whether they wish to re-invite the same witnesses and have them repeat what has already been said, or accept this report as an official version. This is a friendly suggestion that I am making to my Conservative colleagues.
Lastly, I would very much like to talk about young people. Obviously this is important. It is a pity that Ms. Boucher is not here, since this was her suggestion. I would very much like to talk about young people, but if there is no Court Challenges Program, young people will have nothing to stand on, and the meeting would be useless. If currently adults aren't able to exercise their rights under the Charter, it would be pointless to talk about the situation of young people 10 and 15 years of age. This would just muddy the waters.
Thank you.