Philosophically, I fully understand exactly what the amendment, or mover, is attempting to achieve. It seems to create a sense of order to our work plan. The reality, however, is that it actually provides for disorder. Let me explain how and why.
It's usually the prerogative of the chair to call witnesses on another topic if, for example, at a point in time on a given Monday or Wednesday afternoon we actually have some time to fill because we don't have any witnesses appearing on the aquaculture issue. We have the option then of being able to call witnesses and to use that time slot, rather than simply not meeting or meeting on some other innocuous topic. The chair would have the ability to fill that time by hearing from witnesses on another study topic.
If we pass this amendment, the chair will no longer have that latitude, because we will have to complete the aquaculture study before we can engage in any discussion on the crab issue. That's exactly what the motion means. So on that basis, not because I don't want to do the proper work on the west coast aquaculture industry, I do not want to impede the capacity of the chair to conduct meetings in an efficient and effective way and, when available or necessary, to be able to use time slots to hear witnesses on other topics.
So I won't be supporting this amendment.