Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You known I've been called worse names than that.
First, I thank the participants, who have taught us a lot today. This is a group of people who have broad knowledge of the industry and have for a long time, and who have differing points of view. That is the great appeal of this kind of discussion. I myself learned a lot, and I thank you all for your comments.
If any time remains after my two questions, I will turn the floor over to Mr. St. Amand. If you could answer my two questions quite briefly, that would enable us to get somewhat different perspectives. My first question is for Mr. Chevrette.
I got the impression that you had some concerns about the consultations that took place or are taking place with the industry.
Many of you have expressed support for the deal; some of you have reservations; some of you are more opposed. We've heard that from different groups this past week.
I'm worried that many of you have told me privately that you're concerned about the government's consultation with the industry, in terms of how much time you're given to respond to various drafts of potential legal texts. Do you feel that you've been included adequately in terms of your consultation with respect to very complicated details, which remain to be determined? Are you satisfied that you're adequately involved as the details are worked out with our government? I'm speaking about the federal government. Obviously the provincial governments have different responsibilities with respect to their own industries, and that's a separate issue.
The second question, Monsieur le Président, would be, do you believe there is a bit of a rush to finalize a deal? Mr. Emerson, in some comments of his, had said that the final legal text or the more complete legal text might take 60 to 90 days. We read a week or two ago that there may be a draft in the next 30 days, or by mid-June. Now that we have a framework agreement, I worry that the rush to get the details may in fact mean that for seven years or nine years thereafter, perhaps we might find that hadn't tweaked a particular clause or a particular element.
Mr. Lopez, regarding your comments about the dollar, I'm hearing the same thing in Atlantic Canada that I represent. There's a real concern that as the dollar is going up, the price of lumber may go down. At the same time, the export tax could go up, and you're getting U.S. dollars back at a much different rate than you put them in. You know the industry better than I'll ever understand it, but I worry that the rush before we think through these kinds of things might mean that the anti-circumvention clause, for example, will paralyze the government from helping our industry in a difficult position. Have we given an effective veto on changes to forestry practices? I think Mr. Milton and a few others have talked about their concern there. So do you think we would benefit from taking our time? I don't mean another five years, but maybe 60 to 90 days, as Mr. Emerson had originally said.