Mr. Chairman, I'm having a few problems.
First of all, I asked a question and I'm still waiting for an answer. What do you mean by “reasonable steps”? My NDP colleague made a comment that confirms what I've believed from the outset. Basically, we're leaving the minister considerable room to manoeuvre, which quite frankly, waters down the amendment.
Our purpose in bringing forth this amendment was to ensure that the minister consults with parties.Now, you're saying that the minister can consult whomever he wants, whenever he wants. To my way of thinking, the NDP amendment is obsolete. You may as well leave the clause as it was. To say that the minister “shall consult” or “may consult” amounts to the same thing, in my opinion. The expression “may consult” is much like saying that he takes reasonable steps to consults whomever he wants, whenever he wants. There's no difference. All you've done is make a small linguistic change which really doesn't change much.
The amendment also says: “consults with international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations”. While we're at it, why not list other ones. That's the first point I wanted to make. I'm waiting for someone to tell me what is meant by “reasonable steps”.
I'm quite willing to believe that Mr. McKay's amendments are friendly amendments. However, we have only received them in English. You have them only in English as well, but it's hard for the interpreters, and for us, to work. I have to say that this is not very nice for us, Mr. McKay. That's the second point I wanted to make.