Before we get into debate I would like to read this into the record.
I wish to advise the House that an error has been found in the research underlying the ruling on the report stage amendments proposed for Bill C-78.
As usual, when we considered the report stage amendments being proposed, we relied on the printed copy of the bill to provide the context for that study. In this particular case the first reading copy of Bill C-78 dated April 15, 1999 mistakenly omits the royal recommendation which accompanies the bill. Yesterday we noticed a discrepancy between the printed Bill C-78 and its listing on the Order Paper that correctly shows the bill accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Since the record shows that a royal recommendation is attached to the bill and this is invariably a key factor in considering the admissibility of amendments, I asked that my original ruling be reviewed.
Citation 596 found on page 183 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states that the royal recommendation lays down:
—once for all...not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Citation 698 found on page 207 of the same work states:
An amendment is out of order...if it extends the objects and purposes...in the Royal Recommendation.
Thus, because of well established precedents I have concluded that Motions Nos. 24, 25, 27 and 29 standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest and seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre are not in order and will be dropped from the order paper.
I regret this confusion and I wish to apologize to the House and particularly to the hon. members for Scarborough Southwest and Calgary Centre for this unfortunate situation.