I don't disagree with Randy's comments that this probably could be a broader-scope study. I also share Ron's concerns with the focus of the committee.
Reading through some of the testimony that has come up during the course of the crab study, the greatest frustration that the crab fishers face is sometimes getting information when it's too late to act on it, or it's too late to respond to, or whatever. If we want the recommendations from the crab study to really count for anything, it's imperative that we have this thing ready to go in a timely fashion.
I understand and support the intent of the motion, and even the broader scope for something like this, but I still think it's imperative for the committee to finish up the two pieces of work that are front and centre. I have groups contacting me on a pretty regular basis looking for us to take on their cause, or to bring their issue before this committee. I'm sure we all do. My piece has been that we want to get the job done on the crab fishery first. If we continue to mount things in front of that, then I think it becomes a problem and our position becomes a little less defensible.
I hate to bail out on the steering committee, but perhaps I could put to the steering committee that if we want to get something done, I think it would make sense to maybe put forward a broader motion. I still think our priority has to be getting the other two studies completed.