Mr. Speaker, I tend to do that, I am sorry.
I am trying to express to the House what is in this report on sport in Canada. I am trying to express to the House what the problems are with that report.
There are two problems with that report. One of the problems is that members in the House have a great deal of difficulty understanding why it is we go into a committee meeting, a report comes into the House and it is not dealt with.
The other difficulty I am having with it is: Was it necessary for the committee on sport in Canada to travel to Toronto when in fact if it were televised it need not have made the trip?
Therefore, I am trying to express to the Chair how it is that we do not have televised committees. If we had had televised committees, we would not have had to travel to Toronto to talk about sport.
The difficulty the House is having on this side, and I know the government has had this difficulty before, is that when members of the House of Commons go to a committee, for instance the committee on sport in Canada, they expect two things: first, to have good debate on the issue, and second, that something will happen on that issue when a report is tabled in the House. We do not expect it to go into the dustbin of the House of Commons, and that is what is happening. The report on sport in Canada has gone to the bottom of the hockey bag, as my hon. colleague says.
This is much more serious than may be understood by the other side. The problem in the House of Commons is relevance. We are in the House today, and I see five members across the way—