I think really what we're saying is this. You'll notice that there's no specificity in this. Unlike our previous amendment where there was specificity around a number, there isn't in this. In other words, it's for the order in council of the government to make a decision. What we did here was...folks were concerned about the corridors. Perhaps one corridor will exclusively be the one used and others may be forgotten somewhat. The idea of doing it this way is to say to the government, if you see it happening, then on you go. You can then have the ability to say—do you know what?—you've forgotten about that quarter so you should actually have been sending some down that way.
I know in my riding, for instance, both the mills in my riding were short. The millers' association and others were telling us that stuff moving east wasn't moving as well as it should. And we certainly know about oats. Lots of folks were telling us about oats going south, but they weren't going south at all in some cases. This is really about trying to ensure that there is some sort of movement in the corridors but without a specificity to it. It doesn't say, thou shalt do this. We'll leave that to the decision-makers to do rather than simply saying...through the legislation. We're hearing what the parliamentary secretaries are suggesting, which is this idea of rather than drilling down into...we'll have a number for this or a number for that. The whole idea is to look and make sure that it actually gets moved around.
So we'll see how the government feels about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.