Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try not to belabour this, but I think that was well said. I can appreciate Mr. MacAulay's position. I've certainly seen the value of strongly stated support, particularly in the trapping industry in the Yukon. I've watched that go up and down for years, and when the government stands behind something, it's not meaningless. It's not as strong as you want it, but I certainly don't think it's gutless or meaningless to acknowledge strong commitment to and support for an industry.
I know this is going just quickly back to the motion that you proposed, because you raised the question of it. Personally, I just found it had a negative connotation that, in my mind, could lead dangerously close to signalling that the end of the market is near to the people who would celebrate its end. I think that's dangerous. We want to be signalling the growth or the continuation of the market, not using terms like “government's inability" and at the end, “before this industry is permanently lost". When we start putting that language into additional motions, I think that gives people who are looking forward to that day coming hope that it could. I would move away from any kind of language in any motion that signalled that.
Back to the addition, I certainly don't have any concern with the addition “and that this motion be reported to the House”, because I think that adds a strong signal to what we're trying to do, which is to show that we don't see the end of this market anywhere on the horizon.