Evidence of meeting #94 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Is everyone clear on what the second amendment is?
Can you kindly read it one more time, Mr. Oliphant?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It's “without redactions except to protect cabinet confidences, respect privacy legislation and protect sensitive commercial interests.”
Let me say that, under our legislation and with respect to any arms export permit, we will always have our commercial interests protected. That is part of it. I want to be very explicit about that, because it is part of our system. That's not unusual. It's related to the fact that we don't give the names of companies that may have competitors. We are always careful. It doesn't mean we don't talk about the actual products. We don't name commercial interests, because that can put a Canadian company at risk in a variety of ways. That puts management jobs, labour union jobs and all kinds of people at risk.
We will still get the same information, but we will be protecting commercial interests.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, if that's the usual practice, I don't see the need to add suspenders to the belt. I therefore move that the second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Oliphant be deleted.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Do you want to strike out the privacy aspect of it or the confidential—
5:10 p.m.
A voice
It's “sensitive commercial interests”.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I will still speak in favour of it, partly because this is a request for papers. What we are trying to do is to give instructions to the bureaucrats or officials working with the Privy Council Office to do it. We are trying to give them the best advice we can on what to do.
They will, of course, follow all laws. They are obligated to do that. I think that by making this extra clear, we're respecting their work on this. I think it's an important principle, as well, that we acknowledge that there are commercial interests that we need to protect, as well as the lives of people around the world, if there is any misuse of these things. We'll be supporting that.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Mr. Oliphant, just so I understand it, in the absence of this caveat, it is your opinion that this would not actually protect confidential, proprietary information.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have no idea. I am just making it perfectly clear that our expectation is that we would share those interests and those concerns. I can't predict what the bureaucrats will do. That's their job. They are the officials, and they're under the law. I'm just trying to make it explicit.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
First we're going to have to vote on the subamendment I proposed, Mr. Chair.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Given the complexities that would be involved, I think we should vote on the entire thing and then revisit it with what everyone considers.... If that is the friendly amendment or the subamendment that you propose, it will throw the meaning of the entire sentence into a tizzy.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but the usual practice is that we vote on the subamendment first. Then we vote on the amendment, and then we vote on the motion as amended, if that's the case.
So we have to vote first on the subamendment that I proposed.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
The clerk was advising that we do it another way, but, sure, if you insist, then the subamendment—
Go ahead, Mr. Chong.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
For our edification, can you tell us what the subamendment is, please?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Yes. Let me read the entire sentence, and then I'll tell you what the subamendment is.
It currently reads, “that these documents be provided to the committee without redactions except to protect cabinet confidences, respect privacy legislation and protect sensitive commercial interests.”
Mr. Bergeron is proposing that it read, “these documents be provided to the committee without redactions except to protect cabinet confidences and respect privacy legislation.” He is in favour of eliminating “and protect sensitive commercial interests”.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
