Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2006

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But the report would be deposited to this committee, presumably. And if it were just a bland report saying virtually nothing, then you or any other member could move to say that we want greater statistical analysis than has been provided. All this does is give you the opportunity to ask that question.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

My point in making this proposal is that when I look at this, it looks as though paragraph 9(1)(a) is pretty much the same as paragraph 10(a), and paragraph 9(1)(d) is pretty much the same as paragraph 10(b). These are just duplicate reports—duplicates on duplicates.

I don't know whether you're trying to get contradictions, or get so much information that the department won't be able to do anything else, or what, but it seems to me there's too much duplication in the reporting requirements in this. It's actually a short, simple bill, relatively speaking, but there are so many reports required under it; this is duplication on duplication.

I'd just propose that we do away with clause 10, because everything else is covered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Casey in a sense is right, because there is a duplication. We amended subclause 9(1) to put in “competent minister”, and in clause 10 we talk about “Minister of Finance”. This is why we talked about this in clause 9.

I agree with the description that we should have “any activities”. Paragraph 9(1)(b) has been deleted. Paragraph 9(1)(c) concerning Bretton Woods is in clause 10. It's the same with paragraph 9(1)(d), which is covered in clause 10. We're just duplicating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Yes, I would agree with Mr. Casey's amendment, recognizing that it is the Minister of Finance who should issue these reports. That's what we're dealing with: what we're doing according to the Bretton Woods institution. This just makes it far simpler and equally as good a reporting as what is suggested in the bill as proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The issue here is hard numbers. The Minister of Finance is in possession of those hard numbers. I don't see what is challenging for the Minister of Finance—or the “competent minister”, as the case may be—in providing a statistical report on the disbursement of development assistance.

What's the challenge here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Clause 10 has duplication that is—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There is some redundancy. I'd concede that point. Having said that, you'd want to make sure that everything.... You see, the way the original concept was set up was that there would be “the minister” and the Minister of Finance, in the anticipation that “the minister” was the CIDA minister.

Now that you've renovated it so that it's the minister or “the competent minister”, in some respects you might want to jam everything of clause 10 into clause section 9.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

It's pretty much there now, I think.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Well, you'd just want to go through it paragraph by paragraph. I don't want to get into procedural issues here, Chair, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, we're on subclause 9(2), and we're dealing with Mr. Casey's amendment. I think Mr. Casey's amendment.... You're right, it's duplication.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Paragraphs 9(1)(d) and 10(b) have the same wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there an amendment coming to delete clause 10?

All right. I think what the Conservatives put forward here was a motion to delete clause 10, recognizing that the department had said it was duplication, but accepting, then, the amendment dealing with subclause 9(2).

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You were on clause 10, and now we're back on clause 9.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, we're on clause 9 now.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What we would have to do is vote against clause 10. We won't even withdraw it, we just have to vote against it.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

If it's the same clause, we don't want to include it, because I think everyone here wants to make this bill a little better. And you've heard the government's concern that there's a lot of duplicate reporting.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, as just a quick summary--and I don't like doing things quickly--it seems to me that the argument is correct that clause 10 is duplication, given some of the changes that we've already made. I would suggest that in order to make sure we cover all of our bases we take amendment CPC-3 and instead of replacing subclause 9(2), we just simply add it as 9(3).

I think that would cover everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm sorry, could you say that one more time, John?