Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a couple of points I would like to make. I think Monsieur Blais, with all due respect, might have missed the point that Mr. Kamp and Mr. Weston were making. It is a complex file. The point is to pick two stakeholder groups, whether it be DFO and the first nations communities, in two hours. We're just picking two stakeholder groups on a complex issue, and then looking to make a decision as to whether you move on based on that, when there are various other stakeholders that might have some input into whether the committee wants to study it again.
All we've been saying on this side is that the responsible thing to do is to consider this after a decision has been made by the cabinet about the right way to go ahead.
I think Joyce made one good point there when she said it's important to scope out very clearly what we're going to be doing in two hours and who the witnesses will be. We can go on and continue, and I'm prepared to....
I think Mr. Blais' amendment that we hold a two-hour hearing is a start, as Randy has said. But I think the prudent thing for us to do, as the DFO and the fisheries committee, is to look at DFO's response and their role as a participant in this process. That's fair ball, and I'm very open to doing that type of thing.
Otherwise we have to look at the motion about holding a two-hour hearing, with the scope being decided by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure as to proposed witnesses, and bring them forward for these two hours. If we're willing to look at a possible amendment to bring in DFO officials for the two hours to look at their role as a participant in this process in the development of the panel report, that would be prudent to do. But that's where I would cut it off; otherwise it wouldn't be responsible for us to not have a balanced view of all the stakeholder opinions in this.
Unless we're going down that road, I'm prepared to start making subamendments to amendments already, to ensure we focus this on those two hours very clearly.