Ms. Borges, I am going back to what you said.
In my opinion, it’s the opposite, that is, it does not change anything in clause 5(a) where it still states that “market forces [. . .] are the prime agents [. . .].”
Except that by using the words “only if they are necessary” in clause 5(b), it’s as if market forces were the only agents, which is not what we want.
Market forces are the prime agent but, with Mr. Bell’s amendment, the other directions we want to give are also important. I think that is what we are delivering. If we were to support Mr. Bell’s motion, it would mean there are not only market forces. In fact, the way your clause 5(b) is drafted, as you tabled it, it can be read: “only if they are necessary.” It’s as if market forces were the only conditions while, in our case, we are saying to the industry that market forces are not the only conditions; the environmental issues, safety and security also have to be taken into consideration. In clause 5(b), we still keep the same text, stating that if the outcomes “cannot be achieved satisfactorily by . . . market forces [. . .]”. We keep those words but add greater importance to other agents than they had. I don’t think we eliminate the fact that market forces are the prime agent. That is why I do not recommend changing the proposed clause 5(a).
However, by adding the amendment from Mr. Bell and Mr. McGuinty, we give other conditions greater force, without eliminating the prime agents, which are market forces and competition.