I'm afraid you misunderstood my post. They already have this "flexibility" - the current wording just ensures that the implementation takes less than one year (i.e., they have 1-365 days to implement). The proposed change removes this, which means that, in theory, they can take more than one year to implement.
It is simply unusual for a law to set a deadline for royal assent. When the amendment was proposed by the Senate they set such a deadline. The deadline would have applied only to that provision, not to the others. Obviously, the government doesn't want to set a precedent where parliament sets deadlines to when governor-in-council orders are proclaimed. That's why the removed that line. It does not imply that they intend to wait more than a year.
We'll have two new threads one "C-6 implementation ... FACT ONLY" by spyfy with the occasional remainder that is facts only, and one "C-6 implementation stage Hopes and despairs - dreams and cotton candy" full of the usual pessimism, optimism, and in-between.
We'll have two new threads one "C-6 implementation ... FACT ONLY" by spyfy with the occasional remainder that is facts only, and one "C-6 implementation stage Hopes and despairs - dreams and cotton candy" full of the usual pessimism, optimism, and in-between.
We'll have two new threads one "C-6 implementation ... FACT ONLY" by spyfy with the occasional remainder that is facts only, and one "C-6 implementation stage Hopes and despairs - dreams and cotton candy" full of the usual pessimism, optimism, and in-between.
