Mr. Speaker, it should be very clear that we are about to prorogue, and approval of this motion would take it off the order paper. It would die, we would have to begin the process all over again, and I do not see at all the benefit of that. So I will be voting against this motion.
I think Ms. Lee captured what we should be looking at here, and the objections are to process, and not in this venue, Mr. Speaker, to the substance of it.
Standing committee chose to allow all of those amendments, those five amendments that the Member for Nahendeh talked about. By the way, I think three of them were essentially typographical errors; they are of little substance. The Standing Committee on Social Programs said there are aspects of this that a broader membership of the Legislative Assembly should be allowed to speak to. We are not going to pre-empt or presume anything on their behalf; we're going to bring that debate into Committee of the Whole which, in effect, made it much more public and much more accessible for all Members and for the public to hear and see. So I think the procedural point that Social Programs committee sort of missed the boat by not adopting these amendments in committee was, in fact, a very positive and accommodating step and we have all benefited by that.
So I really urge Members to consider what value this will bring to this bill. It was made amply clear, in my listening to what was going on, that we can take this proactive step as a Legislative Assembly and change these laws now, or sit back and wait for a court or other jurisdictions to make those changes for us.
Three months...I'm sorry; if we follow this, the bill will have to start all over again. It could be at least another six months, maybe another year before we could see this back on the order paper to allow the kind of full public debate that is being advocated here. I do not see the benefit of it. This is a great exchange, Mr. Speaker, but I can't vote in support of this amendment.