On our side too. Well, as long as you acknowledge that it's occurring on the Conservative side of the table, because you can't have “too” unless you acknowledge that it's occurring there. There's a lot of revisionist history, and quite frankly it's not coming from this side of the table.
There is no order of reference to study B.C. aquaculture. We have an amendment to a motion on the table that implies that there is, when there's not. Who's deceiving who? I'll go to the B.C. coast any day and say what we did to help out the B.C. stakeholders in this industry. Quite frankly, I would not want to be in someone else's shoes right now.
Since the rhetoric is being raised here, I'm happy to participate, because at least I can actually speak with fact. So let's get on this vote for this. I won't vote for this amended motion simply because it implies that there is an order of reference for this committee to study B.C. aquaculture when there's not. There is nothing of the sort that we've approved. It actually impedes our ability to work as a committee because we cannot call any other witnesses on the other issue that we deem important, which is the crab issue. From my colleague Mr. Donnelly's point of view, as someone from B.C., given the fact that there is not even an order of reference to study the issue of B.C. aquaculture, I certainly would understand why he would not want to support the amendment to this motion. He's quite right to be concerned about whether or not there's any sort of clarity to this whatsoever. So I think we should just get on with this.
I will certainly be supporting a motion to study B.C. aquaculture, because there isn't one yet. In fact, many on this side of the table had to fight to get to the position we're in right now. And the only position we're in right now is to actually call in a senior government official to actually explain it. That's it. That's all we've done. And we had to fight to get it to that point. So let's get on with it.