On this amendment, Mr. Chair, it's important that we amend it in this way, because I actually disagree with Mr. Atamanenko. He's saying it's an important issue. He's saying it's so important we shouldn't study it, we should just pass this motion, for heaven's sake. I would say that actually undermines the credibility of the motion. If you're not going to look into the facts, then the motion is a half-baked motion.
So, again, Mr. Chair, and I want to be very clear on this, we support the intent of the motion; it's the wording of the motion. To be fair to the committee, we've only had, I think it was, a portion of a meeting that dealt with this issue. We had basically one set of witnesses, the railway company, and that was it.
I think if we want to pass a motion, if we're going to talk about amending legislation, then I think we owe the respect to this committee of doing a study on the matter and having a wider diversity of witnesses come in front of the committee.
That's the problem with this motion. It's proposing a solution without actually having looked into the matter. We've looked into it for a portion of one meeting.
That's why this amendment is in front of you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Storseth brought up an excellent point. I'm simply reinforcing it.