I just wanted to make this point. I see my Liberal colleagues trying to spin this as some type of partisan thing. It's simply not. On the wording, we're going to come to some kind of agreement. To look for disagreement where there's agreement is actually the partisan action.
The wording as it stands now would say that “the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans fully endorses the harp seal hunt”, which is a statement that hasn't changed, “and the committee strongly condemns the ban of Canadian seal products by the European Union despite overwhelming evidence in support of its sustainability”, which is a word that was previously used, “humaneness”, which is a word that was previously in the motion, “and value to thousands of coastal Canadians”, which is a new element that wasn't added in the previous motion.
I think maybe we're trying to look for disagreement where we actually have agreement. If you want to go back to the previous language, as far as I'm concerned I don't have a problem with it. If we simply want, as gentlemen around this table, to decide that we're going to have a working solution whereby we can keep the contents, satisfy the members on the other side of the table, and add in the element concerning the European Union's vote, I think that if we approach this from a more cordial perspective, we'll probably get the result we're looking for.