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.