House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was animal.

Topics

Question No. 186
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

What steps has the government taken to give effect to the motion adopted by the House on February 22, 2005, that called on the government to implement the measures recommended in the Auditor General's report to improve the framework for the accountability of foundations, in particular, to ensure that foundations are subject to performance audits that are reported to Parliament and that the Auditor General be appointed as the external auditor of foundations; if no action has been taken, what explanation can the government give to justify its decision?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 188
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Considering the 48 recommendations by the Special Joint Committee's December 1998 report, For the Sake of the Children, what steps or actions have been taken, by the government, in order to address these recommendations on issues regarding the voice of the child and joint custody in divorce proceedings?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 194
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Chatters Westlock—St. Paul, AB

With regard to cancer research and treatment, does the government and its departments and agencies provide funding to pharmaceutical companies for cancer research, treatment and drug development and, if so, on a yearly basis: ( a ) how much funding was given; ( b ) which pharmaceutical companies received funding; and ( c ) what type of research was funded?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 196
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Blackstrap, SK

With regard to funding for Canada Day celebrations, including funding from the Celebrate Canada program, for 2005: ( a ) which organizations and governments received funding; ( b ) how much did each organization and government, broken down by province, receive; and ( c ) were there any pre-existing criteria determining which organizations and governments would be eligible to receive this funding, and, if so, what were they?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 200
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Dauphin—Swan River, MB

With respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what strategy for sustainability has been put in place for sport and commercial freshwater fish in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 202
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Myron Thompson Wild Rose, AB

Since January 2002, have any contracts been awarded by the government to CFN Consulting or any of its senior partners, and, if so: ( a ) who were the individuals involved; ( b ) what was the nature of the work; and ( c ) what was the dollar value involved in each contract?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 203
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Ed Broadbent Ottawa Centre, ON

What is the complete metes and bounds description of Gatineau Park as most recently approved by the government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 204
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Ed Broadbent Ottawa Centre, ON

Regarding Gatineau Park’s boundaries: ( a ) how many times have they been changed since they were set by Order in Council in 1960; ( b ) were those changes made by Order in Council and, if not, why not, and by what method were they changed; and ( c ) were properties removed from the park as a result of these changes and, if so, where are they located and how many acres are in each parcel?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 204
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 204
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 204
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

November 14th, 2005 / 3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, on October 19 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order to question whether or not Bill C-364 required a royal recommendation, and I would like to respond to that.

The Standing Orders were revised in 1994 to remove the requirement that a royal recommendation had to be provided to the House at the time of introduce of bills.

On page 897 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

--since 1994, a private Member may introduce a public bill containing provisions requiring the expenditure of public funds provided that a royal recommendation is obtained by a Minister before the bill is read a third time and passed.

Marleau and Montpetit provides an example of this happening. Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, had been reported back to the House from committee on June 16, 1994 and debate at the third reading stage began on December 6, 1994.

The bill was given royal assent on March 26, 1995, more than nine months after it was reported back to the House from committee.

A royal recommendation clearly can be provided after the bill has been introduced so long as it is provided before the bill is read a third time and passed by the House. It does not prevent the bill from being debated at second reading, referred to a committee for study or allow for amendments to be proposed. As such, the motion of the parliamentary secretary with respect, Mr. Speaker, is premature.

The parliamentary secretary also argued that Bill C-364, the trade compensation act, clause 3, constituted an appropriation for an entirely new purpose which was not already legislatively authorized.

The Minister of International Trade, on April 15, announced funding for the softwood lumber industry associations in the amount of $20 million and before that in the amount of $15 million. It may be argued that such spending then, Mr. Speaker, is already legislatively authorized.

Under clause 4 of the bill, which refers to loan guarantees, it also may be argued that the government by way of the Business Development Bank of Canada already provides loan guarantees in similar circumstances such as this bill proposes.

I submit, with respect, that the parliamentary secretary is premature, first, with his objection to the bill. Second, it is arguable that the bill may not even need a royal recommendation.

These concerns however, notwithstanding the above, can be addressed at the committee level and amendments may be brought forward such that the bill may not require a royal recommendation.

I also have written to the minister to seek the support for a royal recommendation should it be required. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that once the House sends the bill to committee and the minister sees the support for the legislation, the government will gladly furnish a royal recommendation if required before it is read a third time and passed.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for his intervention on this matter and of course I will be back to the House in due course with a ruling.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Privilege
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?