That's what I thought I heard, as well. If that's not what you said, I apologize.
I withdraw my comments, Mr. Chair.
But I would like to thank Mr. Harris for his remarks.
Mr. Menegakis, when you said at the end that we are playing games here--no, not playing games, but that it's semantics, you're right to a certain extent. He hit the nail right on the head. What's going on here is the government is trying to impose its will—I understand that—and not allow the third party to have a second time to speak. That's basically what we're facing here, and he called it.
I don't know why we're trying to do that. I really don't. Traditionally, in Canada the third party has always had the right to speak in every round. Check that out. If we're going to kill that principle here, you'll be setting a precedent that down the road other parties will come to rue.
I really think you should think very seriously about it.
I also want to commend Mr. Aubin for finding a solution that has the power to please everyone. I know that Mr. Julian has spoken to everyone, and I don't know whether it will be adopted or not.
Certain fundamental principles underpinning how committees operate—and by extension, how Parliament operates—are at play here. I would really like for us to reach an agreement. The committee has recently lived through two periods. During the first, the spirit of cooperation served Canada's linguistic duality. And we were able to produce a report. I was hoping we could get back to that report and refer the matter to the government to address the issues pertaining to immigration. We did an excellent job on that. And so, Mr. Menegakis, both sides can indeed work together cooperatively.
When committee members chose to work together cooperatively, by giving a little here and there, as Mr. Galipeau suggested, instead of refusing to budge at every turn, we were productive and able to serve our communities. But during periods when committee members refused to budge or make concessions, productivity stopped. The committee has seen all kinds of crises, with finger wagging on both sides.
At a certain point, the committee could no longer even function. And that did not serve anyone's interests. I was not on the committee then. I came back after that. I found it very encouraging to see the openness and respect being shown around the table. That atmosphere is crucial to our ability to function and be effective, because that is what will enable us to urge the government, regardless of the party in power, as well as provincial governments across the country, to respect federal-provincial agreements involving linguistic duality and transfer payments. A great many of those transfers from the Government of Canada to the provinces involve education, health, immigration and almost every other area.
If we cannot manage to work together effectively—and unfortunately, that seems to be the reality taking shape—if we have to spend all of our time bickering—and believe me, I can squabble with the best of them—it is not just the committee that will suffer. We are facing the possibility of having to convene in the summer. And I have no qualms there, ladies and gentlemen. You will find out just how beautiful Ottawa can be in the summer. I would be happy to have you here, as Mr. Galipeau would, I am sure. There are other ways to obstruct the workings of a committee, of the House, of Parliament. Unanimous consent is needed to green-light certain projects. There are a plethora of ways. I would hope that we can avoid going down that road and avoid confrontation. And yet, that seems to be what people want. When people are suppressed, they will react. That's basic human nature.