The point I'd like to make is that I think we should be cautious and clear, but we have to maintain our credibility. We've had witnesses come in front of us to give lengthy dissertations and answer a lot of questions, but the essence of a lot of the argument is speculative. It's not concrete. It's worries. It's concerns. It's fears. It's things that may have been heard or may not have been heard, but they're not very concrete.
This is a classic example, I think, where someone has a fear of having perhaps heard of a meeting where something might have been discussed. Maybe they give it in a bit more detail than that, but not much more detail than that. And we've only had one or two or maybe three witnesses pertaining to this. It's all very indirect and it's all rather benign, actually.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, I think the credibility of our committee is at stake here. What we're doing is chasing phantoms. We're going to focus this committee and all of its resources on a phantom, something that's not concrete, something that only a few witnesses have mentioned. And it will damage our credibility, because people will say, “Well, what are you doing as the committee? Why are you chasing that when in fact you have more important work to be doing--for example, studying the machinery of government?” That's very concrete.
We can put in place specific recommendations and we can basically improve the way in which our government pursues trade policies, the way it targets particular countries, and the way it works with industry instead of chasing these phantoms.
Once we start chasing this phantom of water being included under NAFTA, when it's not included under NAFTA, what are we going to be chasing next? We could have other witnesses who come in and put up other smokescreens, and then we'll have other motions that come forward and we'll be running in circles.
We have an agenda in front of us. We've been accommodating on this agenda of the security and prosperity partnership. We've televised them, we've gone with extra sessions, and we've called in extra witnesses. And now we're going tangential; we're moving into the obscure here.
It's a concern of mine, because as MPs we need to have credibility. Our committee needs to pursue work that is important to the government, that's important to Canada, and this is simply wandering off into I don't know where. So that's the point I'd like to bring up.
In fact I've called on our Liberal colleagues to realize this. I don't know why there is such support from our Liberal colleagues for a motion such as this. And I don't say that in a partisan way; I say that because I really don't understand it. I would actually look at my Liberal colleagues and say, “Don't you agree with what I'm putting forward here, that we're going to be heading off on the path?”
I don't know why they're not staking out their ground more, Mr. Chair.
We saw that before with the witnesses on the SPP as well, where Mr. Julian had.... How many witnesses did you want to call forward? It was a lot of witnesses, and the Liberals were just basically abrogating their ability to call witnesses to another party.
So I would look at my Liberal colleagues and say, “Have a look at this and think back to the witnesses who appeared before us and what it was they said.” What you will realize is that it's speculation, at best. Basically this committee is going to be pulled off track, off rail, chasing speculation.
It's a concern of mine. I think it's a concern of my colleagues. I hope it's a concern of my Liberal colleagues as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.