The clerk is telling me that the title is still the same as what's in the subcommittee report. But what you're suggesting, Mr. Allen, and you're quite correct in suggesting, is that the discussion the subcommittee had was to undertake a study on aquaculture in the Pacific region, and that was based on the evidence gathered from the previous Parliament. Does that make sense?
On October 18th, 2011. See this statement in context.