Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of Mr. Gourde's comments, this is not about partisan politics. This has nothing to do with partisan politics for many members, at least on this side of the table.
Let's call this for what it is. The motion that was in debate that was filibustered by a member, a parliamentary secretary of the government, was brought forward as a result of the government's action in retroactively changing a program--retroactively, as I said--that, based on the financial advice of financial planners, would have put up to $18,750 in quite a number of farmers' pockets.
What do you think the debate would be in the House of Commons if the Minister of Finance, after the fact, changed the RRSP structure retroactively so that $18,750 of tax benefit they get out of RRSPs no longer meant anything?
So that's an important motion too. There are thousands of farmers out there who were planning on that money. It's of an urgent basis. That motion is important too.
We agree. I went through a lot of this draft report. I haven't completely gone through it all yet. There's a lot of good stuff in that draft report. I want to see it completed and get to the ministers prior to their federal-provincial meeting.
Let's call this for what it is. This is another delaying tactic by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture to prevent us from dealing with a motion that benefits low-income farmers. That's a tactic the parliamentary secretary is using. He's using a procedural motion, and that's all well and fine, but it's already halfway discussed, and it could soon be completed if we went to the motion, moved on it, and got it behind us.
I'm just saying, Mr. Chair, that this is clearly another delaying tactic by the PS. I think it's sad that we can't get to the APF, but the government holds full responsibility for this.
I'll say this. Nobody knows when the House of Commons is going to adjourn, but the government is responsible for when the House of Commons adjourns. If we want to stay here till June 22, that's up to the Prime Minister. If it takes us that long to go through this, then I'm certainly willing to stay, but that's the Prime Minister's call. We can adjourn on June 8, but we could also stay till June 22. It's entirely in the hands of the government.
If we don't get to the APF, there's one party that's responsible. It's called the Government of Canada. We're trying to accommodate the APF. We're also trying to accommodate the other needs of farmers who are out there whom the minister left in a lurch by retroactively changing the program. As the department answered the other day, $246 million that should've gone into their pockets right now is not going into their pockets because Chuck Strahl, the Minister of Agriculture, cancelled the program in midstream. That's an important issue too.