Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 1, this motion is unnecessary because the priorities already set in the preamble of the bill can be found in subclauses (f) to (m).
Motions Nos. 2 and 4 have been grouped together. I stand in opposition to those motions because as currently written in the bill consultations would be undertaken by the agency and so it should be. Changing that to consultations being undertaken by the minister will consolidate power further in the hands of cabinet. That is not wise. The direction the bill was taking in the first place was correct so the intent of Motions Nos. 2 and 4 is wrong. I oppose the motions.
The remaining motion in Group No. 1 is Motion No. 3. That motion is unnecessary because goods and services procured by the agency would already be on the recommendation of Treasury Board.
I support the intent of Motion No. 5. The idea of trying to promote openness and transparency with respect to public consultations by the agency is a good one. There is no existing requirement in the bill to do that.
Hopefully the House will have the wisdom to oppose Motions Nos. 2 and 4 so that we may vote in favour of Motion No. 5. Thereby public consultations will be done by the agency as they should be in an open and transparent fashion for the public.
I have covered all the motions in Group No. 1.