First, I'd like to respond to Mr. Laframboise. I've found him to be very courteous and very much a gentleman in the past, but we're not playing the game; that side or a portion of that side is playing the game. We're not filibustering. We want the will of the committee to go forward. If we lose the will of the committee on the basis of the question, then we lose it and we would respect that. But the game is not being played by us. The game is being played by that side of the table. It's not being played by you, Mr. Laframboise. You've been very clear, and I respect that, and you're a man of honour. But it has been played by other people.
I find it distasteful, but this isn't a compromise position that has been put forward by the other side. The compromise is we're trying to filibuster—From our perspective, from the government side, that side is trying to filibuster, and now we're going to agree to a five-day filibuster with nothing given back on our side. The only thing we're giving is the ability for the filibuster to maintain itself for five days, with no ability to interfere in the meantime. It's the only thing we're giving up.
The reality is we're in the same position today that we're going to be in on Monday. That's not a compromise. That's not good faith, that's not trying to do anything. We're only asking for an exit strategy, whether it be that some members are not present on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or whatever the case may be, or whether or not other members are convinced. We want a decision made. We want the opportunity to have this motion heard.
Mr. Fast, with respect, has waited for six different meetings. It's been three weeks. We're suggesting that we find a common ground while we can find an end to it and have the will of the committee come forward.
Whatever that time may be, let's find a compromise. There's no compromise position put forward by anybody on that side, because that side's trying to filibuster.