Financial Procedures / Legislation

June 8, 1995

Debates, pp. 13480-1

On June 8, 1995, following the adoption of the time allocation motion concerning report stage and third reading of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons, Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley—Lloydminster) rose on a point of order regarding an amendment to the bill made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and contained in its report which had been presented to the House on June 7, 1995.^[1] Mr. Hermanson informed the House that, in his opinion, the amendment ruled in order by the committee Chair required a royal recommendation. For this reason, Mr. Hermanson believed that the committee report was not in order. After an intervention by Don Boudria (Chief Government Whip), the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Later in the sitting the Speaker returned to the House with his ruling. He ruled that the amendment did not alter the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation and therefore the report of the committee was in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Earlier today the honourable member for Kindersley—Lloydminster rose on a point of order concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The honourable member for Kindersley—Lloydminster contended that amendments made in committee to clauses 98, 99, 100, 101 and 101.1 require a royal recommendation and that they should have been ruled out of order in committee.

The argument made by the honourable member for Kindersley—Lloydminster was based on a comment made in committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that new inspectors would have to be hired and trained to fulfil the role instead of adding additional tasks to the duties of police officers.

I have now had an opportunity to review the committee report and Bill C-68 as read a first time and as reprinted by the committee. I am now ready to rule on this matter.

Bill C-68 received first reading on February 14, 1995, with the proper royal recommendation attached thereto.

Clause 98 is the key clause as it relates to this point of order. It was amended by the committee and now reads as follows:

In section 99 to 101.1 “inspector” means a firearm officer and includes in respect of a province a member of a class of individuals designated by the provincial minister.

In the opinion of the Chair, while clause 98 was amended in committee, the amendment brought to it does not fundamentally alter the financial responsibility of either the federal or the provincial ministers involved.

Clause 98 as introduced in the House had the concept of “police officer” for which the concept of “inspector” has been substituted by the committee. It still remains a provincial ministerial responsibility as to which class of individuals shall be so designated. It may well be that a provincial minister decides to recruit an entirely new class of individuals for the purpose of clause 98, but it clearly remains the decision of the provincial authority to do so. Whether the class of individuals are called inspectors or police officers has no direct impact on the royal recommendation attached to the bill.

The other amendments brought to clauses 99, 100, 101 and 101.1 deal with the powers and duties of the inspectors. The Chair has come to the same conclusion in respect to those amendments.

Therefore I rule that the amendments do not alter the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation and that the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled in the House on June 7, 1995, is in order. Bill C-68 can consequently proceed to report stage.

P0607-e

35-1

1995-06-08