Point well taken, because it actually segues to my next point. Having been a parliamentarian for 14 years and having suffered through six general elections and won each and every one of them, I guess I don't tackle easy. As substantial as my weight may be, maybe there's a reason why I've been able to suffer through six general elections and come out on top.
I've seen over the course of a number of years that “may” versus “shall” is an important distinction. Words do mean things in this business. Words do mean things in this place. The specificity of language, the text of language, is the construct of law. Law is interpreted by the specific meaning of words. The context of each and every individual word is uniquely important.
That's why, with all due respect, we can talk about how we'll delay a review for 15 days, then see what the review will produce, and then hold the position of the committee, the evidence that it's collected, and the discussions and rationales of the department itself, as opposed to our own collective wisdom. I don't operate in that way. I didn't come to this place as a parliamentarian to be a surrogate partial focus group voice for a government department.
I came to this place to study, to determine merit, to act, and to act with specificity. I understand, appreciate, and respect the desire to not actually engage in that particular duty, but that's the duty I feel I have after spending weeks and weeks studying this and after hearing so much testimony from stakeholders whose livelihoods are dependent upon this. My paycheque doesn't necessarily come from this decision. My paycheque comes from a whole bunch of decisions like this. And my paycheque is owed to the people who are depending on me to make good choices on their behalf when it comes to their incomes.
The Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation has been proven to be a very effective tool in making sure that the industry itself can make good use of its natural resources, that it can harvest the resources in a sustainable fashion, and that it can find markets for that product that are timely and that maximize the value of their hard work.
I won't be voting for this subamendment, nor will I be voting for the amendment, but I will be voting for the main motion on that particular principle, which is that we have decided as a committee to study this issue and we've decided to judge it. Because that was the intent: to put forward recommendations. In the context of our larger Atlantic lobster study, is it the expectation of anyone around this table that we'll not provide one recommendation to the government that will ask for the government to review specifically...? It's not. It's definitely not. We will be providing recommendations to the government to act.
Mr. Chair, I think I still have the floor. Thank you.
We'll be providing specific recommendations to the government. That's what we do as a committee. Nobody should feel alienated or threatened by that or feel as though your loyalty to place, to Parliament, or to party has been sidelined by that. That's what we do. I don't really understand why it is that in order to get a unanimous report here back to the House we have to surrender that principle.
If people don't want to vote for this, don't vote for it, and if people want to vote for it, vote for it, but let's have this as a committee. If for the necessity of a unanimous position we have to do things we don't agree with, not even on the margins.... But this is a fundamental principle here. I studied this and many of my colleagues studied this, and we recommend that the government reinstate the full funding. I don't think it's really any more complicated or simpler that that. It is what it is.
I'm going to stand by the motion that repeats and reiterates everything we heard in testimony before us as a committee. It's consistent with the testimony we heard from the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. Since we heard directly from one of the senior officials from within the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency that this is a final decision, delaying it by 15 days for the department to review is simply doing what we know will happen anyway. I think Mr. Weston may have actually stated it most clearly: this is not going to be funded.
We need to make sure there is no ambiguity or confusion whatsoever--that the majority view of the representatives, the parliamentarians, and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of where we stand on this issue is made absolutely crystal clear. I think that's very appropriate.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now asking the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation to fulfill things they're asking for that the Atlantic lobster round table asked for, and they're wondering when they're going to proceed with the Atlantic lobster development committee so the Atlantic lobster development initiative, an agency, can get up and running. The answer is that it can't, because it has no capacity to organize these kinds of things. So the motion itself calls on the government, and whether that is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, ACOA, Industry Canada, or Agriculture Canada's seafood and marine products directorate--there are a lot of different institutions that could potentially provide funding for this organization, but they're just not doing it. This motion pretty well says exactly what we need to do.
With that said, I hope we can move forward.