Mr. Chair, if I may, I don't know why somebody would suggest that conservation of a natural resource is muddying the water. As I said, I think the whole thing is a breakdown in communications. There are frustrations. There's tension in the communities.
I would think that our amendment to the motion would be a welcome change: to “identify better ways to engage interested parties”. Who would vote against engaging interested parties, improving communication? Who would possibly want to vote against improving communication of the interested parties? What about reducing tension? Is that not a goal of why we're doing this in the first place—and prioritizing conservation? If those are not goals or they're not consistent with the intent of this motion, then I would have to question what the intent of the motion was in the first place.