I'm trying to point out that when Mr. Easter says that by proposing a study the government is trying to block the intent of the motion, that's absolutely untrue. We cannot block it; we don't have enough numbers on our side of the table to do so.
On what we're recommending--as he recommended earlier in the meeting--if this is an important matter that affects farmers and agriculture, we should bring witnesses in front of the committee to give their different concerns. That would allow the farm community to express themselves and allow the rail companies to explain their point of view. Then we can make an informed decision. We can make an informed recommendation to the House.
Right now, the only reason that I think Mr. Easter is so opposed to the amendment is because it came from the government side. If it had come from one of his colleagues, it would have been great, but it came from us. I'm pointing out the irony in his position regarding whether or not the committee should study important matters: yes if it's coming from him; no if it's coming from us.
My point goes right back to the essence of what Mr. Atamanenko is proposing. This is an important matter that affects farmers, particularly western farmers, and we should look into it. I agree with that. So let's build it into the schedule and look into this. Let's do a proper job on this, not just fire a half-baked motion into the House.