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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The question called is on NDP-10.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 6--Advisory committee)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There are no amendments on clause 6.
Does anyone have any questions or any amendments from the table on clause 6?
Mr. McKay.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The table tells me that we can't withdraw it, but we can vote against it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Wait a minute, we'd better word this carefully.
Shall clause 6 carry?
(Clause 6 negatived)
(On clause 7--Petition to Committee)
December 13th, 2006 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There are no amendments to clause 7.
Mr. McKay, would you like to speak to clause 7?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The fate of clause 6 should befall the fate of clause 7 and clause 8.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. We'll do clause 7 at the present time.
(Clause 7 negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We're getting good, guys.
We've heard Mr. McKay's suggestion on clause 8.
(Clause 8 negatived)
(On clause 9--Reports to Parliament)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'll just read what the table has given me.
On CPC-2, there is a line conflict with NDP-11, Liberal 5, NDP-12, and NDP-13. As long as you're aware of those....
Mr. Casey.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
My amendment is proposing to replace the entire clause 9 with a much briefer one, just because there are so many reporting requirements in clause 9. There was a concern raised about the Bretton Woods Act about breaches of confidentiality by Mr. Flack, who testified from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I'm proposing that we shorten it and make a simpler reporting procedure, and also protect the minister and allow him to just report what he's allowed to report, and not require him to report things he's not allowed to report under the Bretton Woods Act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. If this carries, the other amendments would not be entertained or put.
Mr. McKay.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Just as a point of explanation for members, CPC-2 and CPC-3 should be read together. In my view, they would substantially weaken the Department of Finance's requirements and transparency. It would make for a far weaker reporting requirement.
There are two legitimate points that are raised by the Department of Finance. One is on confidentiality, and we think that is appropriate. It is dealt with in amendment L-5.1. We don't wish to have the Minister of Finance breach any confidentiality agreements that would result from their obligations under the Bretton Woods Institutions. So we've dealt with that in one of the subsequent amendments.
The second one is an issue of providing summaries of reports. We think that is a legitimate point, and that's contained in NDP-11.
So we think that taken as a whole, CPC-2 and CPC-3 actually weaken the transparency requirements. So I'm hoping other members see it the same way.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
In the spirit of trying to make this as clear and concise as it can be, but not making it onerous on the minister, as a result of your proposal, Mr. McKay, we're going to be burning up an awful lot of hours just providing a string of reports that are not necessary.
I think Mr. Casey's amendment brings enough reporting mechanism to it to bring total accountability back to the House of Commons, and that's what's necessary.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Because the bill required a royal recommendation, a petitioning process and an advisory committee process were lost. Therefore, the obligations of the bill now fall on the competent minister or ministers, and their obligations under the bill have to be as strong as they can possibly be.
Whether any trees give their lives in sacrifice for this bill I'm not prepared to say, but I do want the obligations of the ministers to be as strong as possible. As I reiterated before, confidentiality and the summary point were legitimate issues, both of which are dealt with in subsequent amendments.
I don't think there's anything else I can add to that.