I have a last point that I have to make because of what the parliamentary secretary said, which is not accurate. The fact of the matter is that we've all been very cooperative at this committee in terms of trying to get work done. If you go back to when the government first came in, we were extremely cooperative in terms of getting the Advance Payments for Crops Act through, practically just by motion, so that could get out there and money could get into the hands of the farm community. I think the committee worked reasonably well on the Canada Grain Commission, getting that report done and up and going.
We do differ from the government on the Canadian Wheat Board issue. There's no question about that. For the parliamentary secretary to suggest basically that when anybody differs with the government's position those issues shouldn't be debated is about as ridiculous as you get. We felt it necessary to debate the Canadian Wheat Board issue and we did hold hearings. I'd keep in mind, Mr. Chair, that we haven't dealt with that report either, and that report is written in draft. We could, if we wanted to be forceful, say that we should complete that report before we get to APF, but we're not. I'm suggesting we stand that aside. It is an important report; we held a lot of hearings and a lot of witnesses came forward. That's an important issue too.
For the parliamentary secretary to try to lay the blame on the opposition for our not being near completion on the APF is unfair and not quite accurate. The fact of the matter is, we put a motion in the House for the committee to travel. I think you would have to agree, Mr. Chair, that the motion went through faster than probably most committees get moneys to travel, with strong support from us. We wanted to get that done. I think it just stands to reason that we have a good compromise here--deal with two motions, do the APF, get it done, and then go to the other motions eventually.