My colleague has referred to industry in Quebec. I know he has an interest in standing up for the fishing industry, and certainly in his own province. I know he is interested in these issues when they come before committee.
I am curious to know what he thinks the motivation of industry representatives from the province most affected, Newfoundland and Labrador, would be if they supported these amendments. What would be their motivation for coming before committee?
The member is giving the impression that it is just the ones who went and negotiated this and that they have some obligation to support this because they negotiated it. Let me just remind him of some of the testimony that we heard at committee.
For example, Patrick McGuinness, president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the standing committee:
—in terms of what we're looking at now, from the Fisheries Council of Canada's point of view we do not see any tangible negatives in the document. But we do see specific improvements with respect to the current NAFO regime.
He went on to say, “Our recommendation to Parliament will be to ratify the document as presented”.
Bruce Chapman, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, told the committee, “In our view, it is in our interest to ratify this new convention”.
Now this is industry speaking. Does he recall those and why he—