Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's a bit of a stretch to say this motion somehow precludes the chair from filling a meeting that wouldn't otherwise be filled. We have motions about work plans that list in order the things we do, but then we go completely out of order. I guess in every one of those cases, the chair has kind of violated the motion that the committee has passed. In fact, we've done that already in the last week or two. So I think that's a huge stretch.
On the other hand, if he's concerned about that, and I'm not, then if this amendment passes, as I think it should, and if he wants another amendment to this twice-amended motion along the lines of, “with the understanding that the chair can call witnesses on any other topic if there are open meetings”, then we're happy to do that. We're not trying to keep some discussion of this away.
This is about priority for us to start on this study on aquaculture, which is a very serious issue on the west coast, as those of us who are from there know. We've already gotten going and heard some testimony. We've already interrupted our study on eco-certification. We've had many letters from I don't know how many people who want to talk to us on this issue. I don't know how many letters we've received on the crab issue. I haven't seen any yet. There might be some, but I'm quite sure we haven't received the volume we have on the aquaculture issue. I think it behoves us as those who do things in some kind of intentional form and order to carry on with aquaculture.
This motion is simply saying at this point that we are really clarifying our work plan and that if we pass this motion our discussion will be done and for the foreseeable future our order will be giving priority to aquaculture, which we're going to follow with a study on crab. That, to me, makes eminent sense.