Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree fully with the member's amendment because what it really deals with is action versus study and being responsible versus being irresponsible in going to a study that has already been studied three times.
Clearly there is justification for going with the member's amendment. I believe I outlined in my remarks 10 points where CFIA has already been moving forward with a number of recommendations from the three studies that have been done.
In his remarks, the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River went through each of the good recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and he outlined in each of those recommendations where the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or the Government of Canada is moving ahead on actions on those various points. That is taking action.
What the amendment is really doing, if people over yonder would listen to it instead of playing politics as they tend to do, is referring it back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to rethink this, to maybe just look at the action that is taking place; it is not preempting if it becomes necessary to call for another study down the road. But let us call in the CFIA, see what it is doing and make sure that it is acting on what it said it would act upon. That makes better sense.
I certainly agree with the member and his remarks. I wonder if he would agree that this is a good strategy: to take some time and see that we are taking action and not waste human and financial resources by doing another study.