All right. Thank you.
Chair, we voted on the schedule not too long ago, earlier in this meeting. We are having railway officials come in to talk to us about railway operations and costing, and certainly this matter of producer cars and producer car loading sites is one that can come up.
One of the issues with the motion, though, is that it constrains the committee, in that this is a motion that must be dealt with the way it is presented, and it's not necessarily correct. It's basically saying that the government should be doing the job of Canadian railway companies.
Although this committee ended up writing to Canadian railway companies, which was appropriate, it's not for us to manage which sites are open and which are closed. Our job is to make sure that a proper procedure is in place and that due diligence is done by the railways, and we want to ensure that farmers are given an opportunity to participate in the review process.
That's where our role is; it's not to amend necessary legislation to prohibit Canadian railway companies from arbitrarily closing down producer car loading sites. We're not a railway company. I think it's an inappropriate motion.
Mr. Atamanenko says this will just give the committee more clout. That's not what gives the committee more clout. What gives the committee clout is the very credibility of the committee and of the members who sit around the table, and the pressure we're able to bring to bear on the officials of railway companies when they come in front of the committee.
And we did this. The last time they were here, we expressed our concerns about the closure of loading sites, and the list of closures was actually delayed, based on the input from this committee. So this committee has clout; this committee has credibility. A motion like this just shoots us off in the wrong direction and it asks the government to do something that's inappropriate and that is not within the mandate of the government.
I am for the intent of the motion, which is that railway loading sites should not be arbitrarily closed. Of course. I think we're all in favour of that. What I don't agree with is the wording of this motion, which basically says that we should be amending necessary legislation to prohibit it. Is this under—what?—any circumstances? It doesn't make any sense. What if farmers were to agree that a site should be closed because it's not used at all? Should we pass legislation that says it should not be closed at all; that it should always be there, even though it's never being used?
The intent I understand. I think all members around the table agree with the intent. But when it comes down to what the motion is proposing, I think it's completely inappropriate.