I certainly agree that the right to withdraw should be left as is and protected, but that being said, I think sometimes looking at how to fix it highlights the problems.
This is only one example that I found. There might be others in the bill. I'd have to go back and double-check. But if we look at clause 18, under traveller's obligations, in paragraph 18(2)(d), it states that one must, “comply with any other requirement that is prescribed by regulation.” I asked officials a question about what regulatory changes were going to be made, without a satisfactory answer, as far as I'm concerned, because they still don't know, which I find problematic.
When we saw each other last meeting, I asked you about training and whether there should be a formal list of who is doing the training and what the training consists of. When it comes to regulation, it has nothing to do with the text of the law itself. However, maybe there should be more transparency to understand that, if you have a law that says you're telling a traveller to comply with any other requirement that is prescribed by regulation and officials can't tell a parliamentarian what regulation is going to be changed, that seems problematic to me. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.