First of all, I'm puzzled by the motion, because the minister has already committed to doing this. A number of us have already called for this to happen in the House. Why are we voting on a motion when the minister has already committed, we're hoping soon, that he's going to do this? I'm completely baffled by why this would be referred to our committee.
The second part, which is to do a study, may or may not make sense, depending on when it happens. The pulse and grain producers are deeply troubled by this. They want a long-term commitment. They also would wonder why it would come to this committee and not agriculture. I know that agriculture has also been looking at it. The issue is an agricultural issue, but it's an issue about their getting better access to markets to get the grain out in a timely way. These issues have been reviewed by the agriculture committee. One option that has been bandied about was a joint review by our two committees.
I'm puzzled by the first part of this motion. I don't understand why we would be calling for this when the minister has already committed publicly that he is going to do this.