I think that the focus and the intent of this motion is perhaps misaimed. Mr. Zimmer actually landed on it: There needs to be an examination of how DFO makes decisions and how that relates to the minister and the development of policy. Science is one element that informs decision-making, but there are others.
Particularly when you look at the obligation that DFO has to employ the precautionary principle and the fact that science will never be 100% conclusive—we've certainly seen enough of that, particularly in oceans studies—Mr. Arnold should be invited to come back with something that more closely represents what Mr. Zimmer mentioned. It should focus on how science has developed, how mandates are provided by management to the science branch and then how the results from science—I won't even call them “conclusions”, because they are never very definitive—factor in to the overall decision-making process.
As it sits with this particular study and the way it's moved, I can't support it.