Thank you,Madam Chair. Clause 15, unfortunately, is where we start running into problems in the act. Again, I’m generally supportive of this clause except that – again, as poor old Art tried to get collaboration and so on – unfortunately, it’s collaboration between just a select group here. I want to recognize again, very plainly, that I acknowledge and respect those who have decision-making authority for wildlife management. We need a process again, a one-tenth process, to enable everybody to hear the same information, otherwise this becomes a divisive process.
In clause 16 – and I refer to that because it is relevant to clause 15 – there is a process made for those without management authority to make submissions and recommendations on the conservation and management of wildlife and those are made public; they’re made available for public review. My concern is that requirement, which recognizes the need for openness and transparency and gives us the opportunity to work together as our elders have called for, is blocked and it becomes a barrier.
As I mentioned in my remarks, this may not happen, but it’s probably not something that should be left to, perhaps, category. I’m suggesting that, in fact, with a very minor change in clause 15, the adding of the word “public” before the word “meeting,” that we convene a “public” meeting, we can actually develop a transparent and public process that everybody can support because it would bring everybody under one tent. On that basis, I would like to propose a motion.