Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to follow up with my colleague, I think when we're looking at the issues that were on our list here, if we do not take the context of the motion.... And it has been amended. I believe Mr. Atamanenko agrees to the changing of the wording to “given the listeriosis crisis that occurred”, and then “establish a subcommittee on food safety”. I think you can't do one without the other, you can't do that. It would not only not serve this committee, but it certainly would not serve the people of Canada, as they will be looking at this report. You should never delve into something without developing what's going to happen, how we're going to move forward, because we do not want this to happen again.
I would ask that this be dealt with at this committee. When we look down at our first report of the six issues we have, obviously this one is sitting at number one. If it were number five, then I guess it would not have the same priority. The subcommittee in its deliberations obviously said this is significant not only to Canada but also to this committee. It would seem to me that it deserves the attention of the full committee looking at the listeriosis issue, all the things that happened with it. Also, we cannot just stop the dropping of the axe at a point without looking at: what have we done; what are we going to do; what should we do, if we have not? If I were a Canadian reading this report and found it stopped without looking at the recommendations, I'd think we had not served the Canadian people right.
My recommendation, Mr. Chair, would be to support the inclusion of the amendment Alex has agreed to, but that this be a full committee report. Obviously it carries that significance in terms of the priorities.