Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Relevance; beyond scope of bill

Journals p. 863

Debates p. 7264

Background

During report stage consideration of Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, a motion in amendment was proposed by Mr. Saltsman (Waterloo) for Mrs. Macinnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) to permit hospital pharmacies to provide narcotics and control drugs on prescription under the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. The Deputy Speaker was doubtful about the acceptability of the amendment but was prepared to hear contributions from Members before making his decision.

Issue

Is the proposed motion in amendment relevant to the clause it seeks to amend? Can a motion in amendment seek to amend an act beyond that of the bill before the House?

Decision

No, to both issues. The motion in amendment cannot be put.

Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker

The proposed motion in amendment is inconsistent in form and content with the clause it purports to amend. Furthermore, since it also seeks to amend the Narcotic Control Act, it goes beyond the bill now before the House. "It would seem that one of its effects would be to modify or regulate a provision or provisions in the latter Act, and if it were adopted it is suggested that the title of the bill now before the House should be amended to indicate that the bill also amends the Narcotic Control Act."

References

Debates, March 28, 1969, pp. 7263-4.