Mr. Speaker, the irony is that what this bill constitutes is a change, a major change, to the current process that is now in place. That change allows for public input.
It is ironic that members opposite do not support further consultation. That is what the Supreme Court ruled. It has been, frankly, the genesis of a lot of conflict around this issue, because people have not been allowed to have a voice. They have had no impact. There has been no application process in place where people could actually have input.
I get letters from Canadians all the time. I also get letters from groups that want the bill to pass, because they want to have a voice in this matter.