Thank you.
Mr. Julian talked about Mr. Menzies' quote. Nowhere in his quote did it say that he would support safeguards. I don't think he should be speaking for Mr. Menzies. He's not here. So don't be putting words in his mouth. It doesn't say safeguards in that quote in any way, Mr. Julian. There are lots of ways you can achieve that without safeguards.
I do want to point out here that in the past the Liberal Party, of course, didn't support this measure, and I suspect that if they were on the government side today, they wouldn't. We see a game of politics being played here, and in my opinion, it's a little bit of shameful behaviour.
Again, I also see from this committee--which is not shocking, because this is the way it's been all along--that we completely ignore the normal procedure here. This may be a new committee, but there is a procedure that all committees are to be following with respect to research papers. Our researchers here, who are extremely talented, have not been able to do any of the work that we have been here for. It's their job to take a look at what the witnesses have to say and put together a report that all of us around the table look at line by line, fine-tune, and tweak. And that's what you give to the government with your recommendations in it. This procedure of putting a motion together that's only one-sided and that doesn't take into account the differences in opinion that we hear at the table is just irresponsible. Somebody has to hold you guys accountable for that. That's irresponsible.
Why would we not continue with the researchers the way we're supposed to and let them put forward a proper report that we can put forward? It doesn't prevent you from having everything in it that you want. It just shows that we've had other witnesses—which we have—who have not agreed with your position on that side of the table.
I also thought that perhaps some of the good work we could do at this table would be to talk about how the industries can adapt to the new trade environment, taking into account some of the recommendations they had, and give those to the government, and not simply say that there's only one option here. Because there are a lot, and we've heard those kinds of recommendations at this table, as well. I think that would be helpful. I think we're doing the entire industry a great injustice by not even acknowledging those other options, the other recommendations, and the other good work that's been done. I think that's very disappointing.
We, of course, know that since 2002 it's been $120 million. I will give credit to the previous government for that, for supporting the industry. But right now, I think you guys are really making a huge mistake. Perhaps it's not sexy, and it's not going to make the media headlines to see that you're completely flip-flopping on your position and being irresponsible. But it will be held against you at some point, and I can probably guarantee you on that one.
We will be voting against the motion because we believe in the good work of the researchers. We believe there is a process that's been followed for years here in government, and we would like to see a proper report done, because that is the way it should be done, and we respect process.