Then if for some reason they really don't want that read into the record, I've had the opportunity to address the committee on why it is important that we talk about this. But anyway, regardless, it was a motion about the Canadian Wheat Board, and I would have to assume that maybe the reason he brought this forward would have been to try to avoid talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, because he wants to force western Canadian farmers to not have the choice of where to market their grain. In order to do that, he had to run roughshod over the committee, over our privileges as members. I know myself, my motion being the one that was run over...he's run against all practices of the committee and shown no respect for committee practice, procedure, and absolutely no respect for the other members of the committee.
So as I thought about it and tried to understand why he would want to bring this forward, those are the two reasons I came up with: one being his political gamesmanship, and the other one trying to run roughshod over the rest of the committee, so we don't have to debate the fact that he's trying to remove the possibility for western farmers to have marketing freedom. Again, it goes back to the broader point. There is a lack of concern or care for what farmers in this country are asking for, what they want to see happen. Instead, it's all about political games and trying to force an unnecessary election, and in the process trying to force some of these things through that he wants to get on the record prior to forcing that.
So I would suggest that we want to look at this in the context of the broader study being proposed by this amendment, and try to put it into the context of looking at the biotechnology industry as a whole, trying to look at it in the context of what are the opportunities, what are the challenges, and what are some of the issues out there, and hear from farmers in doing so, rather than just moving forward based on some political strategy that Mr. Easter and the Liberal Party have. Let's hear from farmers; let's debate it in the broader context of the study. If you bring this forward today, is someone else going to bring forward one other little aspect of this tomorrow, etc.?
What we should do instead is look at biotechnology as a package, as a whole, and look at the issues out there and make our judgments—whether it be on GM alfalfa, whether it be on other aspects of biotechnology—and do it on that basis. Although they claim there's an emergency, I certainly don't see where this emergency is, as has already been outlined. No registrations are being proposed or put forward at this time. If there were, there certainly is a long process behind that, I'm sure, and I just don't see the emergency here.
I would very strongly suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we support this amendment, because I think it's the only way to give some real context to the discussion, to look at this in the broader context and make a judgment based on all the facts, particularly having the information that's provided to us by farmers. Rather than just trying to move forward with the political games of the Liberal Party and their coalition partners, let's look at what farmers have to say and base our decisions on the broader issue at hand, based on what farmers would tell us.
Thank you.