Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the comments from Ms. May; however, when you look at the amendment as it's proposed, it does get into.... When you look at the Aeronautics Act and what is proposed in the legislation, it says that the minister “may make an order prohibiting the development or expansion of a given aerodrome or any change to the operation...if, in the Minister’s opinion, the proposed development, expansion or change is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or is not in the public interest”.
I think Ms. May's amendment goes into security as well, actually, with respect to “the security of any aircraft or aerodrome or other aviation facility”. That's not the intention of what we're trying to do in this act, I think, to actually get into the security side of that. This amendment, I believe in this case, is overreaching for what we're trying to do. However, I do have a question of clarification, but if the officials could clarify this...? I think this is true.
The other question of clarification I do have, though, is that there have been representations made on this issue by COPA and other organizations that I'm familiar with, and there is some difference of opinion. So here's what I would like to ask. When it comes to the regulation-setting process—because I understand that this legislation is enabling legislation to allow for a regulatory process to happen after that—could you confirm with me that we're going down this road and that the consultations will happen before any adoption of any regulations?