Mauril Bélanger

[Democratic Reform, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today we are having an example of the benefits of living in a federation with two orders of government where we can learn from each other and each other's experiments.

Today there is a vote in British Columbia on whether the population wishes to change the method by which it chooses its representatives. I believe the members in this House would be well advised to learn from that experiment as we find out tonight what the results are.

In the meantime, the federal government has been preparing and waiting for a report from a committee, a report that is due soon, and is as a result of a unanimous request from the House.

[Request for Emergency Debate, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order. The hon. member is well aware that the House leaders of all the parties traditionally meet on Tuesday, which is today. This matter could certainly be raised at that meeting.

If the leaders of all the parties in the House agree, we could proceed accordingly. I suggest, however, that the member—

[Business of the House, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, under our Constitution, the respective rights, privileges and responsibilities of the judiciary, the executive and the legislative are quite well defined. The legislative has the ability to define its own rules of proceedings. It has done so since the start of Confederation and will continue to do so because ours is a fairly well tested method of government. In that sense, the rules that the House of Commons sets for itself in its proceedings are of its own jurisdiction. Therefore, there is nothing here that is ultra vires.

On the matter of the eligibility as to the purpose of the motion that was put this morning, it is a matter of the setting of government business. This would essentially, when adopted, schedule that the motion to dispose of Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill, and Bill C-48, a bill which gives effect to the agreement that the government has entered into with the New Democratic Party, would be disposed of on Thursday, May 19, which is perfectly admissible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one would expect and hope that you will rule that the motion made by the House leader is in order.

[Business of the House, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for some clarification. Standing Order 56.1(1)(a) states:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.

The Standing Orders do not specify the routine proceedings item in question and I was under the impression that we were under routine proceedings. Could the Speaker please clarify this possible contradiction?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 9th, 2005]

moved that the bill as amended be concurred in.

[Democratic Reform, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have had discussions on this. He knows that the government is serious in trying to deal with democratic reform, including electoral reform.

The government does not dictate to a committee what it will do, especially in this instance when it is the opposition that has the majority on that committee. Once the report is given to the government, we will follow the rules and take it under advisement and act according to the rules of this House.

[Democratic Reform, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons, as in the Speech from the Throne, last fall unanimously asked that a committee of Parliament look at the way that Canadians can be engaged in the process of democratic reform, including electoral reform. That committee is preparing its report. The government will certainly act on the report once it has been received, as per the unanimous wish of this House.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had a similar type of amendment presented this morning on the motion for concurrence on a committee report. The question as to whether or not it was in order was raised. We then waited a while for the Speaker to rule. We know the Speaker ruled earlier today that the particular amendment was not in order due to relevance.

Since we are talking about Senate amendments to a bill dealing with quarantine, one might wonder about the relevance of the amendment just proposed. Essentially, the House has already stated, by adopting this bill at first, second and third reading, that indeed the bill itself was more than acceptable to the House because it approved it and sent it on to the Senate.

I would ask that the Chair seriously consider whether or not we are again facing a situation where an amendment has been presented that is not in order and I would ask that the Chair rule on it.

[Government Contracts, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Elections Act is quite clear. All funds received have to receipted and are declared.

After the passage of Bill C-24, if there were any funds in riding associations, these riding associations could register with Elections Canada and transfer all these funds, and that has occurred. As far as I know, there are no trust funds.

[Government Contracts, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has enacted Bill C-24, which allowed riding associations of all parties in the country to transfer any money they had into political associations registered with Elections Canada. As far as I know, that has been done and there are no trust funds to speak of.