Mr. Chair, I believe that’s the justification of the argument today, where we are actually removing the definition even though it’s used in a noun or a verb. We are clearly lessening the legislative process by making more ambiguity in terms of the wholeness of the act, the spirit of the act and the intent of the act. If this is indeed the premise we are about to embark on, I strongly suggest that all departments coming forward to remove definitions is not really what we’re looking for, for great legislation. We’re looking for legislation to have proper definitions so we can understand wholeheartedly what terms mean and represent in the language of government.
I will leave it at that, otherwise we’re going to be chasing our tails on this subject, but it’s more of an observation.
I’ve commented on this before with other acts before the House. I’m cautioning the drafters, I’m cautioning the departments, keep definitions within the acts, please. It offers more clarity, and again, this is exactly what the courts are using. This is exactly what the collective bargaining agreements use. This is exactly what legislators will use to find out the spirit and intent and the true meaning behind acts, words, definitions. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair.