Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister's explanation. I don't agree with it. If climatic or economic conditions lead to destruction or major breakdown of machinery or equipment, it's already covered with (i). If climactic or economic conditions lead to some kind of an emergency, particularly climatic conditions, it likely could be and would be covered off by the kinds of emergencies that are specified in the following three subclauses there. I think having this broad and vague language in here is not very helpful and is probably going to lead to things getting taken to court and so on for interpretations, appeals, and so on. I think that terms and conditions already laid out here with (i) about destruction or major breakdown of machinery or equipment or the other provisions around emergencies already cover off what could be covered by climatic or economic conditions. With that, Madam Chair, I'm going to move another motion. I guess I'm not doing too well here today, but I'll go ahead and do it anyway.
Kevin O'Reilly on Recorded Vote
In the Legislative Assembly on March 12th, 2021. See this statement in context.
Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
March 12th, 2021
Page 2544
See context to find out what was said next.