Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just so we're clear, I haven't heard anybody propose this amendment, so I assume we're still dealing with the original motion, nor have I heard anybody else speak in favour of this motion besides Mr. Byrne, so I think we're probably at a place where we need to draw this to a question.
Nobody is suggesting that crab fishermen in Atlantic Canada won't be affected by this reduction of quota. When the quota was set last year, industry was told there would very likely be a significant reduction in quota this year, and in effect that has happened. What I would most like to say is that while that is a significant impact, in British Columbia, for example, thousands of people, both harvesters and processors, also depend on fisheries resources. There was little to no commercial fishing of sockeye last year, and the prospects don't look good this year. First nations couldn't even get anywhere close to their normal allocation of food, social, and ceremonial fish. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, those who make their living in aquaculture are feeling threatened by this debate. I think an argument can be made that if we're looking at the livelihoods of people, there is as compelling a reason to look at aquaculture on the west coast as there is to look at crab on the east coast.