I know there are many ways to solve a problem and find different solutions. Last time, we were trying to solve our scheduling problem and having the most enlightened discussion possible, saying that we would do this or that. However, we did not arrive at a consensus.
The only consensus we arrived at was to refer the problems to the subcommittee, to the vice-chair and the chair so that this could be discussed again and they would send us a work plan.
Currently, it seems to me that the work plan that is being created is going against the amendments. That does not solve the problem. If I understand the motion as amended clearly, it would seem that there is a study at risk of being set aside, that of eco-certification. That is what I understand.
We seem to be moving closer to an agreement, which is that we seem to be moving towards two priorities and we must not forget that there is a third on the way. It will happen one day. It is floating in a bubble somewhere above our heads and when it lands, we will have no choice but to deal with it. I'm thinking of the new bill that will be tabled. If it is not tabled before next year, we will then have more time and be able to work better. Currently, I understand that that will help us. It is a different way of doing things. We are moving forward through motions and amendments and in that way we are developing a work plan. However, what I understand in terms of the work plan is that eco-certification is being set aside. It is impossible to do everything at the same time. We also are not immune to all kinds of other situations that might arise. The crab situation has just been produced because of the 63%. God knows and the devil can only guess what is hanging over our heads, apart from the new Fisheries Act. A catastrophe could arise somewhere or some kind of decision could result in our urgently having to work on that issue.
There are two issues that concern the committee, that is aquaculture on the west coast and crab in the east. At least that means we are covering issues from coast to coast. So much the better, that is very Canadian. That will allow us to say that we are concerned about what is going on at home. However, as for the motion as amended, I will not be able to support it. It sets out a work plan and projects our working initially on aquaculture and moving next to the crab situation. From my perspective, if I had a better idea of where we were headed on aquaculture I might be a little more comfortable as far as the current situation is concerned. As far as aquaculture out west is concerned, I'm not too certain where we are headed. If I knew more, I could more easily support the amendment that was moved. However, I know that there are witnesses who will soon be invited to appear. I do not know how many, nor for how long. Aquaculture in the west is a very broad subject.