Mr. Chair. I do not understand.
In all sincerity, there seem to be some clear contradictions. For weeks, we have been told that criteria are wanted in the regulations because that would give more flexibility if, at any stage, we wanted to add something, and then something else, and so on. We agreed that the criteria in the treaty will be included in the act. That is great, because the treaty itself is not going to change any time soon.
I had understood that members of the government party wanted to keep a measure of flexibility in case we wanted to add new criteria that would be too complicated to add to an act. So I assume that, if criteria that go beyond the treaty have to be added, they will be placed into the regulations. This amendment covers the possibility of having subsequent regulations. It would provide more transparency because it would really allow the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to come to grips with the issue. It would be done in a more public forum.
The amendment from the Groupe parlementaire québécois already been rejected; it asked for a system allowing parliamentarians, particularly those from this committee, to have the opportunity to consider these issues in greater depth. That was rejected. Parliamentarians providing follow-up of that kind would have provided quite a simple way of ensuring transparency. We will have to see.
Could someone explain to me why we suddenly no longer want more flexibility in the criteria? We have been told for weeks how important it is.