Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to raise a couple of issues.
I appreciate Mr. Easter's intervention on this. I would like to note two things, however. One, if Mr. Easter truly is concerned about our western producers and the $175 million that was reported from the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the Agriculture Producers Association of Saskatchewan and the Wild Rose Agriculture Producers, then he will realize that playing partisan politics with this is not the way to go.
I quote Mr. Easter: “A full examination into the costs railways are imposing on western...farmers...” is needed. This comes off his own website. If this is truly what he wants to do, then this motion will ascribe to that. He, as well as everybody else around this table, knows that playing partisan politics with this is not going to advance the cause of our western producers, so that is reason enough not to do this.
The second point I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is that if you refer to Marleau and Montpetit, page 453, chapter 12, under “The Process of Debate”, any time an amendment “introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice”, it is no longer in order as an amendment to a motion. This is something that is substantive.
If Mr. Easter really wants to get something done with this, we could have a motion come forward to have the Minister of Transport come here for whatever length of time he feels necessary in order to ask about the progress on this. But at the end of the day, we don't need to have partisan politics from the Conservative or Liberal side on this.