It just makes it a little clearer, Mr. Chair, but both really, in effect, mean the same thing, so I'm not overly concerned about the amendment. The amendment would say that the Standing Committee on Agriculture support a request from this committee that the Auditor General undertake an investigation into the possible misuse of rail hopper car maintenance costs since 1992.
The previous motion said “support the idea that the Auditor General undertake”. Maybe somebody who's better at words than I am could tell us whether they both mean the same thing. I really think what we have here is a case where the railways have been clearly gouging the farm communities on freight rates over inflated maintenance costs, and that's now known. Having the Auditor General undertake an investigation into the possible misuse of rail hopper cars maintenance costs since 1992 by the railways would be, I think, an important step.
To be honest with you, I don't know whether the amendment's absolutely necessary; I just think it makes it more specific.