Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While the certification exercise is probably worthwhile as well, it's my understanding that the committee has not finalized its work plan for this session. We've got some good ideas, but it's still open to amendment or addition. It's my understanding that the B.C. study was still very much in play.
I view having Ms. Morton appear before us like a grand jury exercise. It's to help the committee decide whether or not there's enough meat on these bones to continue with the study. I'd like to hear from her, and, based on what we do here, determine for myself--and hopefully with the committee--whether there's cause for a more elaborate or extensive study.
We just heard the senior counsel for the Cohen commission, and asked them whether they thought a study by this committee into the Fraser River sockeye or salmon stocks on the Pacific coast would generally be an intrusion into their mandate or their work plan. The answer I thought we heard was that they didn't really see it as an intrusion--that the two are separate beasts.
The question would be, why would that question be asked if we weren't still considering it as a potential course of study? So I'll be supporting this motion.
I look forward to hearing what she has to say in open and transparent dialogue, so that we can use it to determine whether there are grounds to flesh out this as a major piece of business for the committee to work on in this particular session of Parliament.