If I may just continue, there is no question in constitutional law that the minister may delegate authority. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on that: the minister may. Therefore, it doesn't change the scope of the bill to expand it and say that the minister may, on any terms and conditions—mirroring the language—consider it necessary to delegate the power to grant an exemption. It is part and parcel, hand in glove, of the power that's right there in the bill.
I have to say that in my conversations with counsel prior to this, it has never once been raised that this could be outside the scope of the bill. It has been argued that it may be redundant, because the discretion already exists in the bill. That's the interesting part. I've been told by counsel, in preparing my amendments, that my amendments aren't necessary, because proposed section 56.1 already allows the minister to delegate her authority, as the minister “may, on any terms [she wants] exempt the following”.
If the minister decides that one of the terms and conditions is that she will delegate that authority, which she has the power to do, I don't see that being outside the scope of the bill. I think it's just an extension of what the bill is already allowing the minister to do.
That's my pitch. I'll respect contrary opinion on that, but I don't think it's outside the scope of the bill.