Thank you, Madam Chair.
My issue with the amendment here, which is really a replacement, is that the original motion talks about starting now to divide the federal public service government agency...it leaves it broad, and I'm not sure what the advantage is and I don't understand why things have to be listed.
In my interpretation of the original motion, the Bank of Canada would be included in there. What else do you have here? The Canada Council for the Arts. I'm assuming they're a government agency. I'm really confused. I'm fairly new here, and don't know all the agencies that are part of the Government of Canada. I believe there was a tourism agency here previously, and I think it got moved out of the region. So why is that not included here and this one is included here?
I'm a little nervous about having them listed. I think the previous motion has a better position for the committee and for the government in terms of calculating the thing because I think it will capture more. I'm not sure why these particular organizations and departments were chosen for this motion, and I think it's important for me to know that before I vote in support of why they're there.
In the second part, in terms of posting it on the website and so on and so forth, I don't have any particular problem with any of that. I just don't know about whether the deadline is feasible from a practical point of view. I haven't a clue. So I have a hard time deciding whether this is good. I would rather have been able to ask those who are responsible for actually doing the work to be able to determine whether this is feasible or not, whether it's four months, three months, five months.
So I'm not able to support these amendments to this motion, just because I don't understand what the implications are when we have some agencies and departments listed and not others, and then what the actual availability and practicality of the second part is.