It's a question of deadlines. What happened on April 27 is a good example: we were given 48 hours to consider the proposal, and it was take it or leave it. But we operate according to certain rules. Our bylaws require a minimum of three days notice to call a special general meeting, setting aside all the rules. It really doesn't make any sense. We went along with it, we abided by the rules and were able to negotiate a few minor changes on the morning of April 27. But the day before Canada Day, once again we were told we could take it or leave it, and we had to hurry up and make up our minds. Really! We got together on July 11 and explained our reasons, but the fact is we were heavily pressured!
I agree with Mr. Wilson that it is not a good idea to drag out discussions indefinitely on a single issue. However, it is important to take the time to explain to other industry leaders what the ground rules are, particularly in light of the difficulties Quebec is currently experiencing and the current structural crisis. People want to try and figure out whether this can save their skin or not. You have to take the time to explain things. Perhaps we'd have taken the time. I will certainly be submitting written comments about the process. I don't want to conduct this post-mortem on my own. I'd like to do it with my association's international trade committee. We will be sure to let all parliamentarians know what we went through and how we think the process should work.
I said earlier that free trade had become trade in legal services. The astronomical cost of ensuring the rules are enforced, supposedly to avoid disputes, is absolutely ridiculous. We are spending a fortune in legal fees. By that, I certainly don't mean to minimize the work carried out by our legal advisors in that area, but we are talking about astronomical costs to enforce a rule that is supposed to be very simple. I get shivers up my spine when I think of the kind of technocratic rules that are going to be developed to manage the export quota rules. It's pretty obvious: it will be one form after another, and we're going to be asked to justify hiring 50 or 100 officials. Who is going to pay for all this? Well, the industry is going to have to pay, and the rest will go to the provinces. That is basically what it says in the text. Can we possibly arrange things so that the provinces have to pay more and it costs the industry less?