Mr. Speaker, the bill is riveting and is receiving enthusiastic support from around the House. We are often called upon to debate issues of the day, issues of great passion, issues that stir controversy in the hearts and minds of Canadians, and then we have other days.
Perhaps I am wrong in my sense of the debate, but I have two questions.
One is that as the official opposition, we have a question as to which documents should be precluded from incorporation by reference. There are regulations that we seek to enhance and regulations that we seek to unify with either international or national standards, but in some industries this does not work as well. I am wondering if my colleague across the way, sitting on the committee as he does, has any thoughts on that at all.
There is a second central question I have in approaching what is predominantly a technical bill.
The devil always lies in the details, both of the bill and in how we arrived at the piece of legislation. What kind of consultation went on with the provinces and industry stakeholders to arrive at this bill?
I know there have been several iterations of this piece of legislation and that the legislation has been called for and worked on for some time, but some regulations cross provincial-federal jurisdiction and how things are regulated. My colleague mentioned sporting equipment and safety gear. There are things that do not perfectly fall within one jurisdiction or another, so one would assume that there has been at least some consultation with the provinces that will be affected, particularly those provinces with a strong manufacturing base. I am thinking of Quebec, Ontario, parts of Alberta and B.C. where industries there will be affected.
Does the member know what steps the government took in those consultations? As well, are there any documents that we would want to preclude from incorporation by reference because those particular regulations are just not appropriate for a particular industry?