Amendments to the Content of Bills / Committee Stage

Relevance; beyond scope of resolution

Journals pp. 1080-1

Debates pp. 10575-7

Background

On November 29, during consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-227, an Act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of medical care services ..., Mr. Rynard (Simcoe East) proposed to move that a subclause be amended so that the definition of a "medical practitioner" would include any individual engaged in the healing arts. Mr. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) rose on a point of order to contest the acceptability of the proposed amendment. The following day, after hearing debate, the Chairman (Mr. Batten) ruled that the amendment was not acceptable since its effect would be to extend the purpose and objects of the resolution which preceded the bill. Mr. Rynard appealed the Chairman's decision. The Speaker took the Chair, heard extended argument, and announced his decision.

Issue

Is an amendment acceptable if it changes a definition, thereby extending the scope of the bill?

Decision

No. The decision of the Chairman is sustained.

Reasons given by the Speaker

It is not permissible to do indirectly what the rules will not allow to be done directly. The scope of "insured medical services" is limited by the resolution; to propose to amend the definition of medical practitioner would be to extend the scope of "insured medical services".

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 206-7, c. 246. May, 17th ed., p. 551.

References

Journals, November 30, 1966, p. 1079.

Debates, November 28, 1966, p. 10459; November 29, 1966, pp. 10522-32;

November 30, 1966, pp. 10563-75.