Thank you, Chair.
I guess this is a process comment, but this motion is wrong on so many levels. Here we are having the same conversation we had the other day. We've reverted right back. We were talking about aquaculture the other day. We were talking about how many witnesses we were going to have and how many meetings we were going to have. That was going to be part of a subcommittee discussion. I understood that was going to happen, which would make a recommendation that we wouldn't follow anyway probably, and here is this motion.
Mr. Blais made a great point when he said we're going to examine the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec with no scope on it, no idea how many meetings we're going to have on this thing, or how many witnesses.
Basically what I see is that with no scope, nothing defined on this, all the words are going to be reinserted by Mr. Byrne, choosing all his witnesses again. That's what's going to be on the witness list, and then we're going to be on this for some period of time.
I think we should deal with some of the other questions at hand, such as how much time should we be spending on aquaculture, and deal with this in a logical order.
Until you can put some scope around it, how could you ever support something foolish like that?