Mr. Chair, perhaps I can help.
Colleagues, on that specific issue, and I don't pretend to speak for the Maritime Lumber Bureau, my understanding is they are in discussion with government officials and some government members. There appears to be a language issue. The language of the agreement in one particular sentence is not reflected in the implementation legislation. They have some legal advice that there's a phrase they would like changed. They're hoping the government member would bring an amendment to that effect. I don't think we need to hear from them. Again, our clerk could check with them. I saw them this morning and that's why I was a few minutes late. I didn't understand they wanted to come before the committee.
I respect exactly what Mr. Julian said. Our intention was to keep the study to the strict legislation, and frankly, this discussion this morning and the one we had on Tuesday are interesting enough. If we want the committee to look at some of these other issues, our inclination would be to do a study of the legislation, but not to procrastinate and not to drag it on. I think the concerns of the Maritime Lumber Bureau could be answered in an amendment that may come from the government with respect to a language issue and they don't need to appear as witnesses. Obviously, if they can't come to an agreement on the language--we don't want to go into that now--then they'll probably push to come here. If we open that floodgate, then we're getting away from the initial discussion of Mr. Maloney and others.