Evidence of meeting #126 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
Well, this is a new section.
6:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
It is a section that is based on our recommendation, because we believe that to properly perform our audit function, we need to be able to—
6:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
—obtain those supporting documents.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Agreeing to this would be going against the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Monsieur Morin, do you have any comments on the effect of this, or the technical effect of this?
6:15 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The technical effect of this is that the Chief Electoral Officer will not be granted the power to request documents.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If there is no further debated, I'll go to the vote on all this except for the ramifications to LIB-55. I'll come back to LIB-55, because I have an answer.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
So LIB-38 is carried. LIB-53 is carried. LIB-57 is carried. LIB-60 is carried.
LIB-38 is carried—
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Do they have a majority or something?
6:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
—and CPC-163 cannot be moved because it amends the same line.
On to LIB-55.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
They'll love this act in 2019, I can tell you that.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I'll give my interpretation, and then you'll get the real one.
My understanding is that your principle is right. You can't amend the clause of a bill that's not proposed in the parent bill. However, if a consequential amendment is needed to create something into the bill, then it is actually legal to do that.
I'll let the legislative clerk give the real definition.
October 17th, 2018 / 6:20 p.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
I agree with your assessment, Mr. Nater, that you can't amend a section of the act that's not opened by the bill. There's an exception to that, and this is the exception. We just voted on LIB-60, which creates new proposed subsection 510.001, and there's a reference to it in LIB-55 that's necessary for the whole thing to work.
As a consequential, it's allowed. If it were a strict amendment to the act that wasn't opened, you couldn't do it. Here, because it's a consequential amendment to something that was adopted already, you can.
6:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
