Despite everything, slowly we're moving ahead. That's my impression. Perhaps I'm too optimistic. Gerry raised some points that I agree with. I can't agree with everything he said but I do agree with some of his points.
It's true that we started off in aquaculture with a briefing. I think that Randy explained it very clearly last time when he spoke about the sudden arrival of lice, the famous bug. Then there was a controversy with one witness, then another and we got carried away. Last Monday, I think Randy explained very clearly why we got there.
As I was saying, there is a consensus on two items: a study on aquaculture in the west and the snow crab in the east. That's what I see. With respect to eco-certification, even if a study has been proposed and it's in writing, we have to forget it for now. We can't do all three at the same time. I don't think that would be possible.
We have to find a way of doing both these studies. A solution will be found eventually by the famous steering committee. It will once again suggest a work plan and I hope there will be a consensus. I am not sure of that, but that's life. What I'm seeing, and I'm going to try to understand and support this, is that we appear to be moving ahead in two different areas—at two opposite ends furthermore—with respect to Canadian and Quebec priorities. I share those priorities.
Furthermore, to complicate matters—not as much so in the case of the snow crab—because it's a little less complicated to study given that we are more familiar with the parameters—we were told by Commissioner Cohen's staff that we could move ahead in that direction. However, what complicates matters is that there is a much broader study, which is in fact a commission of investigation that is looking at the same problems we are. I think that's what complicates matters. That's also why we still don't know exactly what we're going to study. There's also salmon. Salmon and aquaculture are two completely different things. This is what is complicating matters.
I personally don't have any problems with this. I think that experts from the west are people from the west. And I imagine that those same people think that the experts on the east are people from the east. That's how it works, that's fine. It's sort of a mutual respect. We end up figuring things out.
I also think that crab is important. We will study aquaculture in whatever manner you want us to. I don't think this will be easy but those are the kinds of challenges we face. We'll have to find a way of undertaking two studies at the same time. That's what will happen, or just about. I don't want to trivialize or ignore what is happening in the west for the benefit of what is happening in the east, by saying that one is more important than the other because of some number. That will be our challenge. Undertaking two studies at the same time is almost physically impossible. But apparently, politics is the art of making things possible, or the art of making the impossible possible.
I hope that my comments will elevate the debate in order to reach a consensus. We have to. Otherwise we are going to get more and more stuck and eventually we'll feel threatened by what you're thinking. The opposite is also true. Perhaps you're right. We mustn't hide things from each other. Like it or not, everyone here has to protect their own interests.
The issue being what it is and the tradition in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans being what it is, we always end up reaching some form of consensus. There are currently two priorities. You will describe yours as I have just described mine, which is the snow crab. I'm more familiar with that. I might have some difficulty in expressing this now but I will listen to what you have to say about the priority of aquaculture. I will go ahead with you. We will try to figure out an agenda or a schedule that will allow us to do this. I don't know how much time is provided for this. That's the worst part of it. That's what I see for now.
It's difficult for me to vote for or against Mr. Calkins' amendment. It will be difficult for me to support it as worded but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am completely disregarding concerns related to aquaculture. I would like to find another amendment that will allow us to do both. I don't want one issue to be dealt with to the detriment of the other. I realize that both are important.