Thank you, Madam Chair. Cabinet won't be supporting this. As one of the Members pointed out, there is a specific information in here and there's also very broad and general information in the subclauses -- I guess subclause (4). What we want this piece of legislation to be is something that people can look at and understand what lien legislation in the territories is, and what this would require people to do is go and now read agreements and before they do work for Indigenous government to determine whether there's any inconsistencies. They might just say, why bother. So I'm not quite clear what, you know, parts of this motion mean. It would take some analysis. And I don't really see any analysis here on what exactly this would do. We know some people might say well, it doesn't do anything. Other people might say well, we'll let the courts decide and we could wind up in the courts. So if there's legislation or if there's, you know, clauses that have ambiguous and unclear and aren't necessary, then I don't think they need to be in legislation. So I will not be -- and I'll say as well that this might appear in the Forest Act and the Protected Areas Act. Those Acts are not the business -- or sorry, the Builders' Lien Act. They're very different. They have very different purposes. When it comes to drafting a piece of legislation every word matters, and legislation isn't necessarily a copy and paste kind of thing. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
R.J. Simpson on Committee Motion 504-19(2): Bill 65: Builders' Lien Act - Amend Clause 3.1, Defeated
In the Legislative Assembly on October 4th, 2023. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 504-19(2): Bill 65: Builders' Lien Act - Amend Clause 3.1, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
October 4th, 2023
Page 6746
See context to find out what was said next.