Mr. Speaker, I hate to smile over such a serious issue but what a great little rant we had at the beginning. What is unbelievable is the member of the NDP.
I am pleased that we now know where the amendment really came from. I was actually surprised to think that it might have come from the Conservatives, but the amendment came from the NDP because it is not beyond that party to want to do a little more study instead of taking action.
Recommendation one would do exactly that: not bother with action, just waste financial and human resources and do another study or have a public inquiry. Maybe we could spend more money in a public inquiry than the $63 million that we spent compensating producers. The producers in B.C. are asking us to look at the Health of Animals Act to try to increase the compensation but the member wants to waste a little more money when three studies have already been done and one by the parliamentary committee itself.
Does the member think it will do any good? He quoted some of the stuff that happened. That is already known. It is in the report. However his attitude is that we should go out and hear it all again.
I outlined 10 points of action that the CFIA has taken to address the very concerns that the member is talking about. One of the members on this side of the House, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, has outlined the steps that CFIA and the government have taken in terms of already moving ahead with action on those recommendations from the committee.
Would action rather than more study and the waste of human and financial resources not make more sense than what he is proposing to do?