Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. MacAulay's comments. Obviously he feels strongly about this.
Let me say at the outset that with regard to both the previous motion and this one, on this side we're not advocating for or against these two policies or any others.
I have two problems with this motion. First, the main verb in the motion is “undertake” a study. I'm always reluctant to undertake a study when I'm told what the result should be. That's what this motion says: if these policies are removed, there will be irreparable damage to coastal communities, so let's study that.
It seems to me that a study needs to have something of an open mind for it to be valid. This motion doesn't communicate that to me. If this motion were about the issue of economically sustainable fisheries, prosperous fisheries, the challenge that many fishermen and fisherwomen are facing of not being able to earn a living without help from the government, that's a study I would be interested in at some point when our schedule allows it to be undertaken. However, it doesn't do it for me to simply say that these are great policies and we need to keep them, so let's go out and talk to people about them.
The second problem I have with this motion is that it presupposes the outcome of the minister's consultation. It was completed just a couple of weeks ago. We don't even know what the result of it might be.
Given these things, we're going to vote against this motion; however, when the consultations have been wrapped up and processed, if Mr. MacAulay still has some concerns about this, I would advise him to bring back a better but similar motion that allows us to look at a study that includes this aspect but doesn't necessarily presuppose the outcome. I would encourage him to do that.
In the meantime, we're going to be voting against this motion.