I have a comment, and then a question.
When the matter was raised by the steering committee, and even earlier in the course of bilateral discussions, we talked about hearing from witnesses connected with this issue. When I voiced my opinion, I indicated that it was a good idea, and almost mandatory, for us to hear from both parties. Once we agree to examine a particular subject, we have an obligation to hear from different witnesses who can shed light on all aspects of a matter like this.
We cannot limit ourselves to only one witness and subsequently declare that the matter is over and done with. No, we cannot. As a rule, when a witness testifies before the committee in connection with a particular issue, whether it be an urgent matter or a planned study, we take the time to go over things with departmental officials and to decide whether or not a study is warranted, unless we have enough facts to decide that we need to do a study, as was the case with the crab fishery and aquaculture industry and with other issues such as small craft harbours.
Fin and I had agreed that we could hear witnesses. I hadn't necessarily agreed to undertake a study, since I'm already well aware of the work on the committee's planned agenda.
In light of our discussion and the initial agreement that we supposedly had, would Fin agree to amending or deferring the motion in question until later, as was mentioned earlier? That would give us time to hear the witness make his case and to hear the other side of the story from departmental representatives. We could then decide whether or not a study is warranted.
As a rule, when we are not familiar with an issue, it makes sense to take the time to hear from those who believe an issue is important or important to them. Then we listen to what departmental officials have to say on the subject and determine what we do next. We get the opportunity to hear from individuals who have sent a letter to the chair, or from people who have asked us to speak to our colleagues and convince them that a particular issue warrants further consideration.
I certainly think we need to examine this matter and decide subsequently, based on the evidence presented, whether a study is warranted. I don't have enough information on this matter to say whether or not we should do a study. In any case, I had agreed—and I thought we all had agreed—to examine this matter with the help of witnesses and to hold off deciding at this time whether or not to carry out a study.