I can totally sympathize with Mr. LeBlanc's comments, but I remember the previous government rarely bringing forward consultations in a committee before bringing forward any form of legislation. Usually amendments would be brought forward by the public or opposition members after the legislation was tabled. Obviously things have changed, with the former government now in opposition.
There is something I fail to understand. It's something I know my honourable colleague tried to touch on. If the text of the agreement is going to come forward in the form of legislation in a few months, then whether we deal with that now in committee over the summer—which, as I said, might be something the opposition feels like doing--or we deal with it in a couple of months from now doesn't make any difference, quite frankly, does it? I agree that the wording of the agreement may be changed from what it was initially on April 27. If we're actually going to deal with that in the fall when the legislation comes forward, I don't know why we would want to do that over the summer. I still haven't heard a clear reason for doing that.
We're saying we would allow any form of consultation--and this committee will meet from morning to night if the opposition wants to--once the legislation is tabled. Creating this sort of hype now, when really nothing is going to happen, and then doing it all over again in the fall I think is quite irresponsible. That's the only thing I don't understand.