Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hear from the government that they don't want to hear from the same groups again, thinking that we would cost the government too much. At the same time, they're forgetting that there was an amendment, or there were some additions and changes to the original agreement that took place on July 1. If they don't think anything has changed, maybe then we wouldn't need the witnesses again. Obviously, there were some changes, and that's why there was some work done in Geneva. Some of us were there in Geneva, and we were kept in the dark by the government. They didn't share any of the information on the softwood lumber deal until after it had happened. We heard it from the media as opposed to hearing it from the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or from other members.
If these signatures on July 1 have no significance, why did the minister go to Geneva? Why was it so important that he sign if there were no changes?
I understand that when there are changes made, the government may need to hear from the same witnesses again, because there were changes. These are the people who know the legislation or the business of softwood lumber a lot better than many of us here understand it. That's why we need to hear from them and from other groups.
I think maybe some of the members from across may be jumping a little and putting the cart before the horse by assuming that we will hear only from the same witnesses. I'm sure there will be new witnesses that we will hear from, and it is the responsibility of this committee, regardless of any cost, to bring those witnesses here so we can hear from them. We--opposition as well as government--can benefit from them in order to come up with a good agreement or legislation at the end of the day.