Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make this motion today because I do not agree that we are ready to give Bill 17 third reading. This bill has not been through an appropriate public review process. I find it very disturbing that five amendments were made to Bill 17 yesterday during Committee of the Whole debate. To me it is totally inappropriate that these amendments, which change the context of the bill, were made without an opportunity for public input. When do our constituents get to have a say? For example, an amendment was made to the Wildlife Act, Mr. Speaker. That's a very key act for a lot of people and it's unbelievable that we short circuited the democratic process by not having a public hearing on something that important. There is a dangerous precedence that is being set by not even allowing the public an opportunity to be informed about a major change to legislation, let alone the opportunity to speak to it. How can we justify this? If we're going to evade the democratic process this time, what's next, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, this bill should be reintroduced in the next session so that people can be given an opportunity to appear before the standing committee and speak to it in it's final form, including the amendments that were made yesterday. It's the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker. Reintroduce the bill so our constituents can have a say in the legislation that's being made here. Mahsi cho.
Kevin A. Menicoche on Motion To Amend Bill 17, Defeated
In the Legislative Assembly on March 10th, 2005. See this statement in context.
Motion To Amend Bill 17, Defeated
Item 20: Third Reading Of Bills
March 9th, 2005
Page 1981
See context to find out what was said next.