Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I fully agree with Mr. Paquette. The difference -- that the government seems to be unaware of -- is that witnesses appeared before this Committee to talk about the April 27th framework agreement. Profound changes were made to that agreement in the middle of the night, leading up to July 1st. I would cite as evidence the reaction of a number of industry associations that were seated at this table several weeks before, and that expressed their support for the framework agreement. That should normally be an indication that changes were made.
I would have thought Monsieur Jaffer would have found it helpful, as the government prepares to draft legislation, to hear from these witnesses who have been in a number of media interviews and a number of discussions I've heard, raising both minor and major concerns they believe can be improved. If the government's position is that it's impossible and there are no changes, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, then that's their position, but that doesn't seem to be the hope of many people in the industry.
We believe it would be very useful to have someone--the minister, for starters--explain why, if the deal is in the best interests of the industry, many of the people whose interests he's seeking to serve are abandoning him. I'd be curious to have that discussion with the minister and to hear from the industry. Perhaps the government could benefit from understanding precisely the industry's concerns before bringing the legislation to Parliament in September.
We don't see it, as the government does, as a useless exercise at all. We see it as an important process to improve the agreement.