I’m of the view that legislation should be as concise as possible so we don’t get lost in a complex of mazes, different sections or subsections that are subject to interpretation, and we start asking ourselves which section takes precedence over which other section.
Paragraph 5(c) as proposed in the bill satisfies me because it is inclusive, it is comprehensive. As for NDP-6, it adds text, nuances in the text, for example where it says: “beyond the disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic […]”.
These are words or additions, it seems to me, that are inappropriate in legislation. That is why I would keep paragraph 5(c) as proposed by the government.