Thank you, Chair.
First of all, that was an interesting intervention from the member who made a career of promoting the closed shop and not arguing for openness.
I don't even know where to begin on all the problems with this particular amendment. First of all, I'm not sure that the Canadian Transportation Agency implements any plans, if you will. I don't think that's a function of the CTA. We may want to check. I don't know if the officials have an opinion on whether the CTA would implement a plan, but my understanding is that's not within the agency's scope.
Second, if you're talking about running rights for the traffic of grain but for no other commodity, what do you do with a mixed train as opposed to a train entirely full of grain? I think there are problems with this.
Third, I don't recall a single witness asking for this, so this is introducing an idea maybe from somewhere in the political bag of things on the other side to try to put everything into a bill. We didn't even get a chance to question witnesses on an idea like that. It wasn't even introduced at the table, but it's being introduced as an amendment.
I think in fairness, Chair, there is a CTA review coming up. I think if the member wants to talk about running rights, that might be an appropriate place to do that rather than trying to amend a bill here with an amendment that is very problematic and that has a number of flaws in it. So I am against the amendment.