Yes, I do like that suggestion.
Obviously, the government hasn't provided a plan to move forward in terms of what exactly that we'll be looking at if we do study Growing Forward 3. So I would suggest that there is a compromise available to us, and that's for us to proceed. We had today's hearing. I think we'd all be prepared to continue this study next week. That's four hours of hearings.
I think what we could do is probably hear from a number of producer groups first. We could probably fit two panels of producer groups in the first meeting. We could hear from the rail companies at the following meeting, and then at that point, I think we'd probably have at least the ability to make an informed decision as to whether or not we'd heard enough and then make a recommendation to the minister one way or the other.
We're not asking for the rest of the meetings for the rest of the year, but we are suggesting that there is a necessity to deal with this. It's a time-sensitive issue. The minister is going to make a decision one way or another—it sounded like in the next short while. If we're going to have any influence on that, now is the time for us to do that. If we believe in our responsibilities to undertake the representation of our constituents...we've all been elected to do that, so I think this is an opportunity for us to earn our pay and to get done what Canadian farmers would expect us to do.