Evidence of meeting #124 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 election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
It's the same or adjacent.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
One could easily imagine a situation in which the care provider is two districts over, certainly in a city environment. It's a distinction without a difference, as we say. If we're okay with this in general, if we're okay that the care provider under a previous Liberal amendment can provide that vouching, but only under the adjacent riding, I don't get why the principle wouldn't also apply if they were one district over.
I'm imagining a Mississauga or a Brampton, or certainly the downtown area. The person may or may not live in the next electoral district over. They may live two or three over, but they are still the care provider. They still have a letter from the facility.
Why is adjacency important? That's my question. Is it relevant to their ability to vouch for the people they are caring for to cast a vote in the election? I don't see how it matters.
Maybe the officials can tell us. Elections Canada are still going to have to call or whatever they do to confirm the care provider's identity, whether they call one district over or two. Is adjacency important for a reason?
11:25 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I would like to cite the Black's Law Dictionary definition of “adjacent”—“Lying near or close to” but not necessarily touching, versus the definition of “adjoining”, which is “touching” or sharing common boundaries.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's nonsensical, then, is what you're saying. Okay, good.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
NDP
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm glad she does.
Just to be clear on this, the legal interpretation that Elections Canada would take is that the districts would not have to necessarily be one beside the other.
11:25 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I cannot predict which interpretation Elections Canada will take.
11:25 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
All I'm saying is that “adjacent” doesn't necessarily mean “adjoining”. The boundaries don't necessarily need to touch. It could be another electoral district that is close by.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I know that we're not talking about a lot of circumstances, but again I just want to avoid somebody setting it up in the nursing home where they're going to validate and vouch for everybody, and then we find out that Elections Canada is going to interpret adjacency the way that I just did, as touching, and then say, “Wait, your care provider is two districts over.”
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
No, it's in the Black's Law Dictionary.
11:25 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary and Le Petit Robert, in French, also define adjacent as near or....
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But not necessarily touching. I'll let it go, then. If we have the Canadian Oxford Dictionary onside, then I'm fine. This whole Black's Law Dictionary thing....
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think we've covered it off, and every dictionary known to humankind is confirming this interpretation. That's the point of our amendment.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Then this amendment is not being proposed.
LIB-13 was consequential to LIB-9.
Shall clause 107 carry as amended?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It was consequential.
(Clause 107 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We had CPC-40, but it was consequential and was defeated with CPC-38.
(Clause 108 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There are no amendments in clauses 109 to 114. There was a new clause 114.1 by LIB-14, but it was withdrawn because LIB-1 passed.
(Clauses 109 to 114 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 115)
We have CPC-41. How I read this is that it says that when there are extra advance polls in rural ridings, there can't be more than one in one place on the same day. I'm wondering who cares, but....
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Did you just say “who cares”? Strike that from the record. I care.
