Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Nicole Giles]

That is correct.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Many of those countries are also signatories to the agreement that the Conservative government signed in the trans-Pacific partnership, otherwise known as the TPP.

[Nicole Giles]

We have not done that cross-comparative analysis, but we can certainly do so.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Is it safe to assume there's some crossover?

[Nicole Giles]

There is indeed overlap.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Yes, there is overlap. Many of the countries with which the Conservative government, which these individuals were part of, signed onto the TPP, are part of the Asian infrastructure bank. Correct? I just wanted to put that out there.

That's it, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas and then Mr. Poilievre.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Going back to the issue of the effect of Mr. Kmiec's motion to make an amendment, you've already said that the government could at a later date decide that it wants to purchase more shares. Technically, it could ask for those appropriations to do so and they would have to come back to Parliament. Is that correct?

[Nicole Giles]

For the appropriations they would have to come back to Parliament, correct.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

So, why would we not want to...? I can see why government members, obviously, don't want to cross their own government, but again, they've said that the initial share was in the public interest. They could support Mr. Kmiec's amendment. If the government made a good decision, it could bring those results back, and then we could have a further examination on that. But right now, this is speculative. We've already raised a number of concerns, and I think that the government would be well positioned.... I think there would then be a benefit, Mr. Chair, to having the government come back and make more persuasive arguments than we're hearing today for additional monies. I think that would create better accountability. I think it would create a little more transparency around the government's intention. I think we would have a much finer debate because then we would actually be able to put the government's investment in the so-called bank and be able to see what came out of it. I'm going to be supporting Mr. Kmiec, and it does not sound like this will interrupt the government's plan. It will simply make sure that, if it wants more money, it'll have to come back to Parliament and ask for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Now we have Mr. Poilievre and then Mr. Kmiec, and hopefully that's it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have to respond that Mr. Sorbara once again conflated free trade with grand international governmental institutions headed up by political insiders and international financiers. There is a difference. We believe in the free flow of goods between peoples. Free trade is about knocking down government barriers so those goods can flow. This is not a free trade institution. If anything, it is an anti-trade institution. It will principally fund the export of Chinese goods westward, away from Canada, by building on the Silk Road strategy of the Chinese government. That Silk Road does not point towards Canada. It points away from Canada.

As for the facts, Japan, arguably the most important market to which TPP would give Canada access, is not a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, so the member across is incorrect in suggesting that this bank is merely a reflection of TPP. There is no benefit to Canada's TPP initiative in pouring half a billion dollars into this bank.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Now we have our final point.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate what Mr. Albas said. I think, as parliamentarians, what we should be doing as much as possible is matching the legislative and appropriation processes as closely together as we can, because it's then easier for us to track the money when things do go wrong, and they sometimes do. It also makes it easier for future parliamentarians who come in here, and I'm speaking as one of the new parliamentarians who was elected in 2015. The estimates, appropriation, and legislative processes do not always match, and that makes it very difficult for members of Parliament to track the money as it's being spent.

What I'm simply trying to do is match it with what's on page 181 of the budget so that the comparison between what was spent and what is being asked for will be easy to make in the next budget. I think it's a very reasonable request that whatever the government proposes to do be reflected in the legislation. I think that's the very minimum. We saw the Speaker make a ruling and split four components out of it based on a new standing order. I think the same principle applies here. The substance has not changed; it's the amounts that have changed. As parliamentarians, I think we owe it to our constituents to be able to track and report the money as best we can, and this would make it simpler.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

I will call the vote on amendment CPC-2 to clause 176.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

For the same clause, clause 176, we have amendment NDP-2.

Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is a very reasonable amendment. I hope all members will be able to support it. It's a transparency amendment. I will read it to make sure that everyone is on the same page on this amendment:

The Minister of Finance must, at the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report setting out the payments which were made to the Bank out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund during the previous fiscal year as well as the purpose of each payment and must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is made.

It's very simple. It's to have the Minister of Finance, after each year, table a report saying what the payment amount to the bank was and for which projects was the money used. It is very reasonable. It will give Canadians transparency over their own money. Canadians pay tax every day. They expect the government to be responsible with their money.

We are in front of a fait accompli that government will go ahead with this investment in the Asian bank. The main thing they should do is at least provide transparency over the money that is spent by this bank and over which projects were financed.

I ask every member to support that amendment. It's very simple. It doesn't impede the government from going ahead with this project, but at least Canadians will see where their money went. It's not the government's money. It's Canadians' money. As I've said before, I don't think it's the best way to spend Canadians' money, but if the government decides to do so, at least please be transparent and provide Canadians with the details of that spending.

I hope I have the support of every member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

I have Ms. O'Connell.

I would like to ask officials, following Ms. O'Connell's comments, what the process is now to try under the bill, without this clause to have transparency, to inform the public of where monies are being spent.

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, that's my question for the officials.

Can you outline how? You already mentioned in your earlier statement how it shows up in estimates. Can you outline what the process will be in terms of outlining to parliamentarians the funds that are spent?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Giles.

[Nicole Giles]

I'll be very happy to.

Transparency on payments and expenditures is a critical aspect of Canada's international assistance engagement and, indeed, on how all funding from the international assistance envelope is spent. That includes funding that goes to international financial institutions such as the AIIB . There's a multitude of different reports where all of this information is already reported. If Canada joins the AIIB and makes these payments, this would become part of those reports.

That includes the statistical report on international assistance that follows the report to Parliament on the Government of Canada's official development assistance under the ODAAA, Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. That is quite a robust narrative report. I think this year's version was quite thick, describing in some detail the projects that are funded with international assistance funding, the results that are achieved for it, and the purposes for which the money is used. The statistical report that's associated with that provides very detailed financial statements.

We also report on our international assistance, which would include this funding, to the bank through our OECD DAC reporting, which is a requirement of our membership to the OECD DAC. That information also appears twice a year, which speaks to the funding that would be made as part of these payments as well as the purpose of those funds.

Last, in terms of Canada's more domestic, slightly more parliamentary focused process, the payments to the AIIB would also be reported in addition to those external reports. Those payments would also be reported through the estimates process as well as in the public accounts, which provides further transparent reporting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there anything further?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

No, that clarified it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas, and then Mr. Dusseault.