Mr. Speaker, clearly we have a disagreement on the consultation process.
The minister outlined quite clearly that there was consultation that in fact occurred. Over $100,000 was provided in a one-year period to consult on these four amendments that they have a concern about.
There were letters. I have copies of them. I clearly saw an exchange, back and forth, over a one-year period, where questions were posed, embargoed legislation was provided so they could review it, look at it, and make comment on it. They made comment. They asked questions, and they raised these concerns. The minister replied, trying to assure them that their concerns were heard and were being met by this legislation.
That was done over a one-year period, with financial support to allow them to do that. The point is not that there was not consultation. The point is that there is not agreement on that point of consultation.
As the minister clearly stated, if it can be absolutely demonstrated that there is anything that breaches the umbrella final agreement, all the government needs to see is a clear demonstration of that. If that is demonstrated, then we can look at the amendments. Otherwise, consultation has occurred. Funding support was provided for that consultation. What we have is a disagreement. It does not mean that people were ignored simply because we do not agree or that we they were not consulted. It only means that we have reached a disagreement.