Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did find it odd that we are repealing definitions within the purview of an amendment of an act. It is to my understanding that when we were doing legislative review, legislation in its pure form is supposed to be as prescriptive and definitive as possible to remove ambiguity, ambiguity in definition and ambiguity in law.
Although we heard earlier today that the term is used seldom – I heard only once in some other form of legislation – this would actually prove that even more detrimental that definitions are not removed from legislation. That there’s a clear and definite rationale for a definition to actually appear in legislation, as I said earlier, is to be as most prescriptive and definitive as possible. The courts have told us that. The courts expect that from legislators.
So again I ask, is this fundamentally the stance now of the department that when we review legislation we’re now seeing the removal of definitions, that we are actually being less prescriptive in design? Is this the intent? Thank you, Mr. Chair.