Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right, amendment NDP-35 is withdrawn, and on clause 658, Mr. Kmiec, the floor is yours.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I am chagrined that Mr. Julian chose to withdraw the amendment. We were going to vote for it.

I actually have questions about the sections here, because it's repealing paragraph 5(1)(d) and subsections 5(3) and 5(4) of the act, and it is substituting proposed paragraph 5(1)(c).

What is it deleting? What are the sections that are being deleted, and what do those sections do?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're not on the amendment. It's withdrawn.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We're on the clause.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could you explain the questions related to the clause that is in the bill?

[Deirdre Kent]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

The clauses are being removed since they fall within the scope of existing reporting requirements under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. There are several clauses within the existing ODAAA that duplicate what is in the Bretton Woods reporting requirements, but the ODAAA, with the amendments, would still continue to require summary reporting on Bretton Woods.

With the amendments, all of this reporting would be occurring at the same time. I hope that addresses the question.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You've just explained to me why they're being removed, but not so much what these sections were specifically that are being removed. That's my question.

[Deirdre Kent]

Are you asking which ones are being removed?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Yes. Paragraph 5(1)(d) of the act is repealed and then subsections 5(3) and (4) of the act are repealed. I'm just wondering what they were and what they were doing.

[Deirdre Kent]

Paragraph 5(1)(d) calls for:

a summary of any representation made by Canadian representatives with respect to priorities and policies of the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Paragraphs 5(3)(a) and (b) ask that the Minister of Finance prepare a report under section 13 of the Bretton Woods agreements act on positions taken by Canada that are adopted by the board of governors of Bretton Woods institutions, and a summary of Canada's activities under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. That reporting actually takes place under the Bretton Woods reporting act and there will still, under the ODAAA, be a summary of those activities.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Will it be in the same amount of detail? Those seem like really detailed sections requiring the Government of Canada to provide the representation the government is making and to whom. That seems like the type of information that I as a parliamentarian would want to see. Will that detail still be there in these new reports? Is this a requirement under the law in the new reporting or is it just “Canada's activities”, like it says here, in broad strokes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Pang, I believe you want in.

[Louisa Pang, Director, International Finance and Development Division, Department of Finance]

I can refer to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. It's helpful. Currently in terms of annual reports, section 13 says that the Minister of Finance will table in Parliament:

a report containing a general summary of operations under this Act and details of all those operations that directly affect Canada, including the resources and lending of the World Bank Group, the funds subscribed or contributed by Canada, borrowings in Canada and procurement of Canadian goods and services.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

That doesn't quite sound like the exact same thing that was being asked for before in terms of the representation being made by the Government of Canada at the Bretton Woods institutions. This sounds a little different. The Minister of Finance will be reporting similar information, but not exactly the same thing as before, so why the change?

[Louisa Pang]

The overall purpose is not to reduce the reporting to Canadians but to provide more clarity and transparency. The single report that will be coming forward is to be defined, and we'll be consulting with stakeholders to make sure the report does fulfill our obligations under the acts and to make sure the information that is necessary will be presented.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You're saying “clarity and transparency”, but the BIA is suppressing one section and two subsections and making a pretty significant amendment to another one, which is just kind of smudging over exactly what would be reported. To me, it looks like the old version was more specific regarding the information that was required.

With this new reporting, will I as a parliamentarian be able to compare previous reports given to Parliament and draw a link with any clarity? Will it be the same type of information from the previous reports? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like it will be completely different.

[Louisa Pang]

I think one of the changes that was done is in terms of the fact that right now there are multiple reports, and one of the concerns is that it is hard for stakeholders to understand the type of international assistance that's provided through institutions. Going forward, the intent is not to duplicate exactly all three different reports that we have currently. That would not be the objective, but taking the point, it is the priority to make sure that what is reported meets the expectations and the needs as required.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay. I agree with that. It's required by law because reports to Parliament have requirements built into them. The Minister of Immigration, for instance, has in the IRCC act a substantial amount of reporting requirements on specific programming streams that he or she must report on.

There are a lot of reports to Parliament, and usually they're very broad in what a minister and a department can provide in them, but it's the details.... In some reports to Parliament, Parliament has required very substantive and specific information. It seems to me that in this section we're going backwards, where we're going to be giving more latitude to the minister to determine what to report on in terms of activities, whereas before we required very specific information on meetings and positions held by the government at the Bretton Woods institutions.

Is that a correct assessment?

[Deirdre Kent]

If I could just underline, perhaps, in Bill C-86, under clause 658, it does explicitly state that “a summary of Canada's activities under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act that have contributed to carrying out of the purpose of this Act” would be reported.

As Ms. Pang said, the intent is to retain and increase the transparency of Canada's reporting on international assistance and have greater clarity. I don't think you would be losing the detail, but it will be subject to consultations on what this new report would look like, building on what we have currently.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I think you'll agree that for “Canada's activities”, activities could be defined as meetings that are held or teleconference calls. It could be almost anything. There's a lack of clarity. I'd say we're going backwards.

The previous enumeration you gave me was actually very specific in what was being asked for in the report, which is why, like I said, I'm chagrined that Mr. Julian removed that motion. I thought we were going in the right direction, which was to keep it as it is and keep the reporting requirement pretty specific.

Are there other countries that do it in the same manner that is being proposed here? Are there other member countries of Bretton Woods institutions who are also making such changes, whereby their reports through their legislative branch will also be just about activities and there will be no specific information requested?

[Deirdre Kent]

I'm not sure, to be honest. I can tell you that Canada's rating in terms of the transparency of our reporting on international assistance is considered very good in our recent peer review by the OECD DAC and also by the international aid transparency initiative. I think we're building on a strong foundation, but we do want to strengthen what's available online and make it more accessible and understandable, including through the consolidated report.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You said that you weren't aware of potentially what other countries have done, so in the review of this section and the proposals being outlined here, you're not aware of any other country doing such amendments or such changes. Does the department hold or review reports from other countries on this Bretton Woods institutions reporting?

I'm thinking of the United Kingdom, which is the most comparable country to ours. Do you have an example of it? Does the department look at the report tabled in the U.K. Parliament by the government there and the type of information being provided? If I check the U.K. report tabled in their Parliament, will I find activities or will I find the enumeration you gave me before?

[Deirdre Kent]

I wouldn't be able to say with authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Tom, but I was just going to ask, with the new reporting approach, will it provide the equivalent information in all aspects, as is provided now?