Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Since we started this morning, there has been either a misunderstanding or bad faith on the Conservatives' part, because what we are talking about is not whether we are in favour of or opposed to Bill C-474. Since we started this morning, the parliamentary secretary has been making big speeches to say he is opposed to Bill C-474. We know that. What we are discussing is the possibility of having a 30-day extension for this bill. I repeat, that should be a mere formality. I have never seen a discussion drag on about this in any other committee and I want to make things clear. Randy is right, and even though it was in camera, it doesn't bother me to repeat it: I did not want us to spend the entire time we have between now and Christmas on one subject, whether it be Bill C-474 or something else, because ideas were already firmly entrenched and we had to give priority to the list of witnesses we should hear on this and be sure that an appropriate number of meetings will be devoted to the bill. What we are discussing here is whether we want to be sure we can do that. As a committee, it will simply facilitate our work when we set the agenda we are supposed to have set at 8:45 this morning. Then we will be able to say that we have all the latitude we need to consider the priority matters, one of which is Bill C-474.
I will remind you that I was even opposed to 10 meetings being devoted to this bill and I will continue to oppose that. We had reached a compromise, that we might need three or four meetings to hear all the witnesses and finish it, but we are going to have until December 10 to do that, not until October 22, if we don't agree to Alex's motion. So it is just to facilitate our work so we can set an agenda and devote a particular number of meetings to Bill C-474, a particular number of meetings to reviewing the programs, and another particular number of meetings, obviously, so we can complete the report on young and beginning farmers.
So I don't see what the Conservatives are aiming for when they make big speeches to tell us how awful the bill is. This is not where that will be decided; it will be decided in the House. That is where the fate of the bill will be settled, by voting for or against it. Here, we just want to know whether we should have the latitude, as a committee, to be able to put it in the right place on the agenda between now and December 10. That doesn't mean we will be talking about it until December 10; there is a big difference.