Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made by the government.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 71% of the vote.
Order in Council Appointments June 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made by the government.
Questions on the Order Paper June 15th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order Paper June 15th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 19 and 24.
Questions on the Order Paper June 13th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Committees of the House June 12th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That in relation to its study on the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, on June 15, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee members.
Government Response to Petitions June 12th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
Questions on the Order Paper June 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who have been breathlessly waiting the last hour and a half to hear me ask you to please allow all questions to stand.
Extension of Sitting Hours June 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for not only his comments today, but for his good work on the accountability act legislative committee. I also thank the hon. member for agreeing to support the motion, which is actually why we are speaking today. Rather than on accountability, the motion is to extend sitting hours for the week of June 19. I also thank all opposition members who have spoken today in support of the motion.
The reason we introduced the motion today is that it is the last day to introduce the motion according to Standing Order 27(1). If we had not introduced the motion today we would not have been allowed to sit extended hours the week of June 19.
Prairie Giant June 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement that was first reflected by my hon. colleague from Wascana. It deals with a production by Minds Eye, a film company from Regina which, along with the CBC, has done a disservice to the Canadian people.
Prairie Giant, the mini-series about Tommy Douglas, was a dishonest portrayal of Saskatchewan history. In particular, the portrayal of the hon. James Gardiner. the former Liberal premier of Saskatchewan, was not only inaccurate, but the producers attempted to rewrite Canadian history in a partisan, dishonest manner.
Even worse, the CBC dismisses criticisms of this movie by saying that this portrayal of real historical figures is in actuality a work of fiction. This is wrong. If this is truly a work of fiction, why is it being distributed to schools for classroom usage?
The CBC's position is unacceptable. The citizens of Saskatchewan and the Gardiner family deserve a full and complete explanation.
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT June 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Wednesday you invited comments on whether Bill C-293 requires a royal recommendation.
This is a separate matter from the stated purpose of the bill, which all members would agreed, that foreign aid should support international development and the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights abroad. However, the bill as drafted raises important procedural issues.
Clause 6 would oblige the Minister of International Cooperation to establish an advisory committee for international development cooperation. Subclause 6.(3) states that the committee shall consist of up to 20 members. Subclause 6.(7) provides that the members will be paid remuneration and expenses for their services in amounts that the minister may set. These provisions have financial implications.
On February 8, 2005 the Speaker ruled on a similar case in which additional commissioners were added to an existing commission. In particular, Bill C-280, in the 38th Parliament, which provided for additional appointments to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, was found by the Speaker to require a royal recommendation.
Bill C-293 would create an entirely new committee and the appointment of its members would similarly require a recommendation. I note that in the February 8, 2005 ruling the Speaker stated:
Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.
I note that clause 7 of Bill C-293 would provide for any resident of a developing country to petition the committee outlining the deficiencies in Canada's development, seeking corrective action, and require the committee to process that petition. It would also require the minister to respond to that petition stating:
--any corrective action required by the competent minister and the period within which the action shall be taken as well as the facts and reasons on which the competent minister’s decision was based.
This means that in addition to the remuneration of the advisory committee members, Bill C-293 would cause new expenditures in two ways.
First, a new advisory committee, and the support of that committee, would be an entirely new function not authorized under existing legislation.
The committee would clearly require funding in order to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, which would include: receiving, recording and forwarding petitions, in subclause 7.(2); making any examinations and enquiries necessary to monitor ministers' replies to petitions, in subclause 7.(6); and preparing and submitting annual reports to the minister, in clause 8.
Second, the bill would impose new statutory responsibilities on ministers, which would require new expenditures, including: sending an acknowledgement and reply to the petitioner and the committee, in subclauses 7.(3) and 7.(4); and creating and submitting reports which are newly required by this legislation, in clauses 9 and 10.
The Speaker has, in past rulings, emphasized that a royal recommendation is required for a new and distinct expenditure which falls outside existing departmental responsibilities.
I submit that Bill C-293 would create a new statutory requirement for monitoring ministerial decisions on development assistance through petitions and for legislatively required responses.
I would note that Canada currently provides development assistance to over 150 countries. Creating an advisory committee allowing any resident of those countries to petition the government and requiring the Minister of International Cooperation to provide a detailed response to such residents would mean significant changes which would have important financial implications for the government.
In addition, the statutory requirement for the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of Finance to prepare reports on their activities and operations under this bill would be an entirely new function as some of those reports would be on activities newly required by Bill C-293.
The government supports the use of international development assistance in reducing poverty abroad and improving international human rights.
However, as I have indicated, the bill as drafted has financial implications which require a royal recommendation and, therefore, the bill is not procedurally in order.