As someone who has a very large riding—the size of Poland—I take the point. I apologize profusely. Of course these places are unique and important places and they are not in the middle of nowhere. I was trying to characterize the relative remoteness. It wasn't going through the heart of an urban centre. My apologies.
Anyway, to get more to the point, I support adding passengers to the witness list. I would like us to remove the statement that there was no food or water, because I don't think that has been established yet. It is certainly something we can ask Via Rail, and we can ask the passengers what they were provided.
I also support Mrs. Romanado's amendment to remove the other two parts.
To me, the airports thing feels like a separate topic. I understand it's transportation. However, if we're going to create an omnibus motion that condemns the government for all of their failings on passenger transportation, I'd love something in there about their failure to replace Greyhound with any semblance of an effective passenger bus system in this country. Of course, we could go on and on. My preference would be to keep it short and to the point and to call the witnesses. This is an important study.
I know Via Rail is motivated and certainly willing to appear before the committee. I hope the minister shares their willingness and that we can get to the bottom of this and then report our findings to the House and improve our passenger rail system so passengers don't face similar circumstances in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I can't amend an amendment. Is that correct? Is doing that not our practice? Do we frown on that?