Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree essentially with the position that's being taken. I agree with what Francis is talking about, but this isn't a review. This isn't a study. We're being asked to report this immediately to the House, as if we already know what all the answers to this are. That's why we need to take the time. This is a very important issue for western Canadian farmers and it's important that we take the time to review this properly. It's important that we have witnesses. As Francis has said, there are two sides to it, although as decision-makers we need to, I believe, be tilted on the side of farmers, as Alex has suggested. But there are two sides to this, and we need to make sure that we take the time to at least call some witnesses forward on this.
That's why I would propose that we do a study on this. Now, you can pick how long you want to do it for, and we can talk about that, but this is something that is important enough that we should be studying it and making sure we do the right thing on it. I'm sure that we'll all agree on our recommendations at the end of the day, as we have with other issues with CN and CP, but on these issues, we can't just take them and say okay.... Otherwise, we might as well vote on all of this stuff, and we can clear our whole schedule up. If we already know all the answers to everything, we don't need to listen to the farmers' point of view and the industry point of view, and then we can just vote on all this stuff today. We don't need to go forward with one meeting on each thing.
This is something that affects western Canadian farmers. We need to have more than one meeting or one reporting of this to the House. We need to have real, substantive recommendations that we believe need to go forward. It's the same with the costing review.
Anyway, I would propose that we do a study of this. I'm flexible on the timelines on that.