Evidence of meeting #189 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I'd say it's very much the intent that we would be able to provide the same information as is available now in terms of the qualitative and quantitative information that's available on the Bretton Woods reporting as well as ODA overall.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I wish we could legislate just with intent, because if that were it, government would succeed at everything it intended to do.
In terms of the reporting done by other states, the department didn't do a review of other countries and their reporting requirements imposed on them by their parliaments or their legislative bodies. It's okay if you don't have an answer. Maybe you can just get back to the committee on whether a review has ever been done by the department in the last few years on these proposed amendments.
It's just looking to me like we're reducing transparency and clarity in the name of transparency and clarity and are not achieving that goal. Other countries may be providing more detailed information to their legislators and parliamentarians.
Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
We'll return to the committee with that additional information. I will say that we did just have a peer review by the OECD DAC that gave a very positive review of our transparency on our international assistance.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Return that information to the committee, if you could. It will be going to the House from here, if we approve it, so it would be good to have it by then.
(Clause 658 agreed to on division)
(On clause 659)
Mr. Julian, you have an amendment in terms of NDP-36.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. This amendment would offer greater certainty around the issue of sovereign loans.
I move to amend the bill by adding, after line 16 on page 572, the following:
For greater certainty, only sovereign loans that meet the requirements of official development assistance, as defined in section 3 of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, are to be used in calculating Canada's official development assistance contribution under that Act.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Julian, for bringing this amendment forward. In actual fact, the purpose of this amendment is already captured as one of the reporting requirements in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. It is already captured on that front, and therefore, the amendment is redundant to existing requirements. We already have it.
Second, if the amendment hypothetically went through, it could not be implemented, as it refers to a definition in section 3 of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act that clause 656 of BIA 2018 repeals.
With that, I will be voting against the amendment.
I don't know if the officials wish to clarify anything.
Liberal
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Just on that, greater clarity clauses are never a waste of time. They're never repetitious. They're there for judges to see what Parliament intended and not to read an intention into that particular section.
I'll be supporting Mr. Julian in this, because I like greater clarity clauses. We should use them more often. It's a direction to the courts and to the judges who may be considering it. They're not redundant.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks, Mr. Kmiec.
Today we had a government representative saying that the issue around medical cannabis had been resolved, and then we found out later on that it hadn't been, that now we're looking at getting a rebate. We found a number of other issues that apparently were resolved or covered, and when we actually went through the parental leave provisions, for example, they were not covered off. It's not just the element of adding greater certainty. Quite frankly, given the track record of the statements....
I understand that the members opposite are reading what's prepared for them, but we saw a number of times that assertions they made turned out not to be true. There is no doubt that this would be an added benefit, and I would hope that the government members would see fit to allow an opposition amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right. NDP-36 on clause 659 is on the floor for a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
We now have Liberal-8 on the same clause.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Basically, we're cleaning up the English version. The French version remains as is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further explanation needed?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 659 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 660 agreed to on division)
We will now start division 18, the department for women and gender equality act.
There are no amendments from clauses 661 to 674, unless there are questions to the officials.
(Clauses 661 to 674 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clauses 675 to 685)
November 20th, 2018 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
That was a short stay, Ms. Bélanger, a short stay at the table and a long stay in the room.
Division 19 is on the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act. There are no amendments on this one, unless there are questions. We'll let the officials take their seats.
I believe we have a question from Ms. McLeod.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
This change was not signalled in budget 2018. Was it not part of budget 2018?
Joyce Patel Acting Director, Lands Directorate, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
No, it was not part of the announcements that were made in budget 2018.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, certainly from our perspective, the additions to reserve change does need some fine tuning. I think there are ways in which it could be made more effective.
What we have here is something that was not signalled in the budget. The committee was not designated to even have consideration of any component of this. Certainly, from a technical briefing, there seems to be some merit to where they were going to go with it, but I just will bring to mind Bill S-3, which this government brought forward. It was not until we heard expert witnesses that we realized it was a complete disaster.
I would like to say that we cannot support this, because it really should have been brought forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It's not that the INAN committee is so overworked with legislation that they couldn't have had done their due and proper diligence with this, where we would have actually brought in people from the municipalities and first nations groups and others to just ensure that it's been done properly.
Again, I think this is unsupportable. It's important to look at what we're doing and how we're doing it, but to be doing it in an 800-page budget bill when it was not signalled in the budget, and when there is the capacity of the committee, is actually quite shameful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm not sure, so somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this question was raised with the minister when he was before the committee. Did he say it was referred to in budget 2017? I'm not sure. We'd have to look at the minutes. At any rate, your point is noted.
Are there any further questions?
(Clauses 675 to 685 inclusive agreed to on division)
Thank you to the officials on division 19.
Next is division 20, dealing with the Criminal Code. There's only one clause here and I don't see any amendments.
(Clause 686 agreed to on division)
Division 21 is entitled “Poverty Reduction Measures, Phase 1”. There's only one clause here. No amendments are proposed.
(Clause 687 agreed to on division)
Division 22 deals with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. There are no amendments on clauses 688 and 689.
(Clauses 688 and 689 agreed to on division)
(On clause 690)
We have CPC-12.
Mr. Kmiec.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'll be referring to testimony given at the transportation committee, because it's impacting on this. Our amendment proposes to limit the permissible time of interim orders from two years to one year. It limits the ability of ministers—I love limiting the ability of ministers to do anything—to make specifically interim orders only when “significant” threats are posed to marine safety.
Now, the Shipping Federation of Canada, in its testimony before the transportation committee, had concerns about clause 690. They said:
These orders could remain in effect for up to three years without any of the basic safeguards provided in the normal regulatory process, such as consultation with affected stakeholders or regulatory impact statements that we do when we have regulations.
In our opinion, the proposed framework for interim orders in the marine mode is much broader than what we have found in other Canadian legislation. We have more detail in our brief, but just to make a summary of the common features we have seen in other Canadian legislation, usually ministerial interim orders are for a type of risk that meets a threshold, and that threshold is...“significant risk” or “immediate threat”.
Furthermore, they say, the lifetime duration of an interim order under the legislation that they've seen is more tightly constructed. What happens there is that those ministerial orders can stand alone, on their own, for 14 days. Thereafter, the Governor in Council must come to approve such interim orders and then extend the power by one year, as in most of the legislation, or two years, as they have also found.
That's basically the crux of what we're proposing to do here. It's to constrain some more of what the minister can do. As the chair knows, I love constraining ministers in what they can and cannot do. This limits their ability to make these interim orders to only when there is a “significant” threat, which matches with other legislation that this Parliament and other parliaments have passed. That's the crux of our amendment.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the challenges of this proposed amendment is that it could limit the ability to urgently address marine safety or environmental risk. Also, the current interim order authority sought in the legislation provides flexibility to address a range of risks and situations that can't always be anticipated. Indeed, limiting the use of an interim order to either “significant” or “intermediate” doesn't allow for a precautionary basis. I think that's something that wasn't contemplated in the amendment that's just been put forward, because the ability to deal with precautionary situations prevents risks from escalating to the point where they are immediate and high-risk situations.
I think the other point is that the motion proposes a time frame of 14 days, and that would not necessarily be sufficient. Risks can sometimes occur over a number of months. Putting that limitation on it doesn't provide the flexibility to address the range of situations that could come about, the other piece being that Transport Canada does have a long and storied history and a successful track record of dealing with these types of incidents, as well as with the marine industry and stakeholders.
The other piece is that this is continuing work with partners, such as industry, marine safety and stakeholders. It's something that as we move forward we'll continue to do, but this amendment actually limits their ability to do their job. For that reason, I'll be voting against it.
Thank you.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Just on some of the points you've raised—not you, Mr. Chair, but Madam Rudd—there are other pieces of legislation that provide for interim orders to be issued and then for that to go to cabinet so that there can be a broader decision by a bigger group of people. That timeline—and in scenarios where it's a multi-month significant threat—is why I think cabinet can make a more permanent order as needed.
What the Chamber of Shipping, the Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Shipping Federation of Canada have all said is that the way the rules are constructed now—and they're not complaining about there being rules, they're saying they comply with them already—it gives the minister too much latitude in determining what the conditions are for introducing an interim order, what the conditions are and how long the order will last.
I want to refer to testimony given at the transportation committee by the Chamber of Shipping on this clause. They said that “there needs to be a requirement for compelling evidence and/or science that ensures that such regulations or interim orders are sensible, and that such action will not have adverse consequences to marine safety or marine protection”. That's actually not already part of it here.
What they're saying is that they're fine with the introduction of these rules, but constrain the minister and provide some type of evidence mechanisms that he or she is supposed to meet in order to introduce the interim order. Then, if you want to make it more permanent, they're fine with the rules, but what they're also saying—and this was a point that the Shipping Federation of Canada raised—is that one year is the typical Canadian legislative timeline for these types of orders. What's being proposed here is two years. They're saying that a yearly review is something that they could live with.
Again, they go on in their testimony before that committee to say that they already comply with the rules, they keep track of them and they're actively trying to do this. They're saying that this simply gives the minister too much power to decide things, potentially on a whim.