Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have always accepted the outcome of the May 2nd election. The very makeup of this committee is a direct reflection of those election results, but the problem is this: How do we make sure that all the factors are taken into account, in other words, the principle upheld by the government party whereby every member can speak, and the principle we have always had whereby the official opposition begins the first round of questioning and the third party goes second?
We do it with Mr. Aubin's solution. I do not see why we could not reach an agreement, a compromise, that would do everything we want. Why are we still discussing the same issue for a third meeting now?
I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the government members do not wish to make this last little change to reach a compromise. I think we could leave here today with something that may not satisfy everyone 100% but that could hit everyone's key elements. That is all we expect. What do we do if we choose not to reach a compromise? What are our options?
This is our third meeting, and we are still coming up short. What are our options? There are now four NDP members at this table. We could ask the chair to hold meetings this summer, and he would have to agree. In fact, if four members sign a document calling on the chair to hold a meeting in the summer, he would be bound by the rules to do so. He would have no choice.
I don't know whether anyone at this table would want to convene in the middle of the summer, but that would be one possibility. Mr. Aubin's proposal is full of compromise, a steadfast Canadian tradition. His proposal would ensure that we do not have to convene in the summer, cut into our vacation time with our families or stop our work in our ridings. Mr. Weston knows full well, as I do, that it is not easy to come back from British Columbia, but we are prepared to do so if need be.
The government members could just put an end to this entire debate by agreeing to a compromise that we are all in agreement with and that does everything you said. We listened very carefully to everything you proposed to us. And Mr. Aubin has addressed everything you proposed.
I don't understand this lack of flexibility, but we still have to work together, regardless. I think that if the government side said it was prepared to accept this compromise, we could take a different approach at our next meeting and do the work we are supposed to do—study official languages across the country and ensure they are being respected.
I will certainly have more to say. But I would like to talk about the issue of representation. The makeup of our committee reflects the makeup of Parliament following the May 2nd election. And yet, when you look at the electoral map and the regions with the largest francophone and anglophone minorities, you see that nearly all of those ridings are now represented by the NDP. When you look at that bilingual proportion—francophone and anglophone minorities—you see that nearly all those ridings are represented by the NDP.
So I do not think it is too much to ask to establish some fairness when it comes to official languages and thus not deny the official opposition—which represents all those regions—the opportunity to speak for a half-hour while witnesses are being questioned. It is normal that we be represented in every round. We have accommodated your requests.
Mr. Chair, I am simply asking the government side to show some flexibility and meet us in the middle so we can finally put an end to this debate.