Evidence of meeting #37 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
If I understand properly, it means that the Minister of Finance will give the report to the minister, and the minister will give, at that time, the report to Parliament. The Minister of Finance will be, in a certain sense, under the jurisdiction of the minister of CIDA.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes, that's a possible way. Do you think the Minister of Finance will agree with being under his jurisdiction?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It doesn't matter whether he agrees or whether he doesn't agree.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
But it matters for me, because you see there is a certain solidarity. Because he could say by “a summary of any representation made by Canadian representatives with respect to the priorities...” done by the competent minister. You should have there “the competent minister”. If you want to do something, do something with “the competent minister”, because I would not like to have the Minister of Finance reporting to a minister of CIDA.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'm sure you're not commenting on the competence of the current Minister of Finance.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
With “a competent minister”, you're adding “a summary of any representation made by the Canadian representative with respect to priorities”...a summary by the competent ministers.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
He has a point there. Maybe it's just been so long that some of these things are starting to make sense to me. He does have a valid point there.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, you can go back to subclause 9(1), though, Mr. Patry. I'd just point out that it says,
The Minister, after consultation with every competent minister, shall cause to be submitted to each House...
And then it talks about getting a summary of the representations made with respect....
So I think maybe the upper part, subclause 9(1), answers the question. Does it?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes. You could change it to just “The Minister or the competent minister”.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Put “competent minister” after “consultation”? Is that what you're saying? I'm not quite sure what you're driving at.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
He's saying that we include “The Minister or the competent minister”, and then strike the rest after “consultation with every competent minister”?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No, you say “The Minister or the competent minister”. Delete “after consultation with every competent minister”. It's “The Minister or the competent minister...shall cause to be submitted...”.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No, not after.... We delete “after consultation with every competent minister”. The competent minister will not consult with himself.
December 13th, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, I know. But you'd still have “after consultation, shall cause to be submitted”, right?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
“The Minister or competent minister, after consultation, shall cause to be submitted to each House....” Is that correct, Mr. Patry?
