That is the way it is going to be--deal or no deal.
Again, I find it very interesting that the motion prejudges the outcome of the testimony here, because the profound changes are actually in the opposition's perception of the public support for the agreement. The terms of the agreement have been augmented only very slightly. You can exaggerate it all you want, but that is fact.
There has not been any significant evidence of the necessity to hold extra meetings to discuss this. We've had the witnesses before us, and the majority of the witness testimony we've heard has been in support of this agreement. We're bringing them back in again. We're going to go through the same process again. Then we're going to have the legislation, and they'll come back here before us for a third time. And then we're going to debate it in the House. There is an exceptional cost to that. I don't understand why we want to be very irresponsible here.
It goes back to the fact that the opposition wants to cherry-pick only testimony that supports its position. If you recall, the Bloc's motion introduced in the previous session was very clearly ignoring 10 witnesses who came before this committee.
I think if we're going to talk about this motion a bit more, we need to talk about what the end result of our meetings here will be. Are we going to add on to this? We need to be sure that we have a report produced this time. I'm really not interested, and I don't think the majority of industry or the provinces are interested, in seeing another motion construed as a report coming from this committee, when it will not include the majority of the witness testimony we've had here.
I'd like to see the researchers put together a report--that is their responsibility--and I think you should be agreeing to that. That's the normal procedure we have around here. I'm not interested in having witnesses come before the committee whose testimony will be completely ignored again. So can we please decide what the outcome will be? And can we decide that we're going to have a report and an outcome and a mandate?