Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing. I'll be a little on the quick side in my questions.
I imagine that you gentlemen read the blues testimony of previous witnesses. The testimony from actually a pantheon of witnesses was basically that not only was the intent of this regulation wrong, but the wording was wrong. They said--reluctantly--that there were a few saving graces, but overall we were better not to address the issue.
I don't know what your reading of their testimony was, but I think you, or anyone, would find it difficult to argue that it was decidedly different from what you gentlemen have said today--with the exception that you've said that the wording of the bill does not render the intent the way it should.
Am I correct there? Perhaps Mr. MacDonald could speak to that.