Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That wasn't a paraphrase, but a caricature of what I said. Ultimately and ironically, I'm trying to achieve the same goal as my colleagues opposite. I see that there could be some value in CCFI, and certainly we're all unified in our desire to make the fisheries industry a healthier one.
Mr. Byrne talked about our competency as this committee. Our competency from the several hours of review can't measure up against the decades of experience that ACOA has had with CCFI and the factors that have caused ACOA's mandate to be changed. By going beyond our competency and to use the words in the resolution as it stands, I'm saying that you're going from a win to a lose. You're going to lose my vote, which may not be consequential, but more importantly, we will lose the opportunity to revisit this by taking away any flexibility from the import of the resolution that passes from us to the minister and to ACOA.
What I'm saying to Mr. Byrne and to Mr. Stoffer and to my other colleagues is that if we're going to get a win on this, if what you want to achieve is really the survival of CCFI, if the flourishing of the fisheries industry is what you really want to achieve, then be more flexible and give the government an option, other than something called “full funding”, which sounds like you're asking for it just to remake this decision that it's already made. That's what I'm saying.
We're not the Queen. We cannot mandate, even though we would like to mandate, but we can certainly send a powerful unanimous decision if we get the resolution right.
I'll be voting in favour of the amendment, and I'll signal right now that I'll be voting against the resolution if it is unamended.