That shows the difficulties of drafting on the run. We should be careful; we may end up with nothing here.
I support the evolution of the amendment. I think I disagree with the advice offered by Ms. Wong, who seems to have overlooked the existence of a comma prior to the words “and other entities”. I take the view that if the comma is inserted, it gets us to where we wanted to be originally, with a relatively unrestricted other entity relationship, with municipalities clearly being subject to relationships with the province. That would get us to where we want to go.
If the officials are consistent in that...and I'd like to hear from one official who can speak for the department clearly on it. If the insertion of a comma doesn't work to separate “and other entities” from the rest of the words, then we're back to the drawing board. That's my view.
Mr. Chairman, could I get a clear statement, I guess from the drafting counsel, that the insertion of a comma before the words “and other entities” is not sufficient to separate those words, that phrase, from the reference to local authorities?