Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that our colleague Mr. Weston's comments pretty well sum it all up, that the government has found a position that it's not going to bend on. I don't know if he's speaking for the government itself or using his own perception of what the government's actions will be.
I think the words of Mr. Weston pretty well reinforce the essential nature of the original motion. I'll paraphrase Mr. Weston: the government is going to do nothing with this. What would give us any confidence that the government would do anything with a milder, more tepid, more flexible motion? It would do less than nothing. That would be my response.
This committee has reviewed this. What the amendment suggests is that the government should review this. Now, the government has already reviewed this and rejected it.
The committee has reviewed this. We'll find out where the committee stands on this, whether or not yet another governmental review is required or whether or not the committee itself.... We have conducted a fairly exhaustive, intensive study on the CCFI, having heard from witnesses and stakeholders in the field through our Atlantic lobster study, having heard directly from CCFI, having heard directly from the government itself, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We've conducted the review.
Now I think it's important for us as a committee to actually have confidence in our own capacity to make specific recommendations to the government, not simply to defer that responsibility back to the government and abdicate the responsibility to provide counsel to the government. That's what the function of a standing committee is. When we review a bill, we don't review a bill with the intent of recommending changes to the bill. We change the bill. That's what we do. We change the bill and then send it back to the House.
With this particular motion, having conducted a due diligence study of the issue, we are recommending a specific course of action to the government, not recommending that they study it further. We have a level of competence here to be able to make this decision and to make a specific recommendation based on what we heard as evidence.
That is why I will not be supporting the amendment. I genuinely, sincerely appreciate your intent and the spirit of it. If we didn't have such exhaustive information before us, if I did not feel truly competent enough to make a specific recommendation, I'd be inclined to follow your advice and ask the government to reconsider here. But we have the data, we have the evidence we need. There are no holes to fill here.
We are in a position where we as a standing committee can make a specific recommendation to the government with confidence and with competence. So I would ask that the amendment be defeated and the original motion be brought forward and accepted, and that this be reported to the House on that basis.