I think that's my point. We're not studying animal welfare today. Animal welfare is not part of Growing Forward 2 in the way we're looking at it.
At the beginning of our study we all agreed that we wanted to study Growing Forward 2 and provide useful input to the government as they were putting it together to help them in their consultations. We all agreed that we would actually partition the study into segments. For example, for the research and innovation segment we're going to call in witnesses to talk about research and innovation. Then we won't shoot off into 100 different directions and get point/counterpoint on things that don't really concern Growing Forward 2.
I think we started off really well in this regard, and we've worked our way along. Now we're falling off the rails when it comes to our witnesses staying on target. The committee sets its own goals. If we didn't agree to this at the beginning, fine, but we did, and we did very well for the first four modules. It's only in this fifth module that all of a sudden everyone's scattering to the four corners. I think if we go with Mr. Eyking's comments, the counterpoint doesn't belong in the study either.
My concern is that we're trying to stay focused. No one infringes upon an MP's ability to ask questions and for a witness to answer those questions. But when it comes to the opening testimony...I know the clerk has been vigilant in expressing the will of the committee on why we're inviting this witness and what the presentation should focus on. Otherwise it could focus on 100 different things, and I don't think that's what we're after.
Anyway, that's my point. I just wanted to comment on what Mr. Eyking said. If the whole thing is off topic, it just exacerbates the problem to bring in someone to give the counterpoint on something that's off topic.