I would throw the question back to you. Clearly some instructions were given regarding the order that should be put forward at this meeting, so I'm wondering about the order that Mr. Amos is now suggesting. He originally came forward with a motion that showed what appeared to be priorities starting with the conservation piece. We feel that is something everyone in this committee could really get their teeth into at a running start. If you are doing things by consensus, I think you're going to have an opposition here that is willing to really dig deep and do it in a respectful way. I share Mr. Eglinski's view that this is an opportunity for us to prove that these committees really can work by consensus rather than through conflict or political agendas.
On February 25th, 2016. See this statement in context.