SoVote

May/18/22 3:18:07 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

May/18/22 3:18:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I hope that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: (i) on May 18, 1944, the Soviet Union, under the orders of Joseph Stalin, commenced the Surgunlik—the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatar people from Crimea; (ii) there is clear and ample evidence that the deportation of the Crimean Tatars from their homeland was intended by the Soviet regime as a means of collective punishment and to destroy the Crimean Tatar people. (iii) the mass deportation led to: a. Approximately 200,000 Crimean Tatars being deported from their homeland; b. Thousands of Crimean Tatars dying during the deportation; c. Tens of thousands of Crimean Tatars dying from starvation, disease, forced labour and continuous abuse by the Soviet regime; d. All Crimean Tatars being deprived of their property, their freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement; (iv) on November 12, 2015, the Parliament of Ukraine recognized the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet regime in 1944 as genocide and designated May 18 as an official day of commemoration; (v) on March 18, 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea following a military invasion of Ukraine; (vi) since then, Crimean Tatars face renewed persecution, including forced disappearances, attacks on their freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and their dispossession of private property by the occupying Russian Federation; the House: (a) recognize that the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet regime in 1944, known as the Surgunlik, constituted a genocide against the Crimean Tatar people. (b) designate May 18th of each year as Crimean Tatar Deportation (Surgunlik) Memorial Day.

292 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 3:20:14 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing none, it is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

39 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 3:22:02 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:21 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-234 under Private Members' Business.

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 3:34:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

19 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 3:35:22 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-206 under Private Members' Business.

37 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 3:46:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

19 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 3:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill S-223 under Private Members' Business. The question is on the motion.

42 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:00:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

20 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:01:56 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Victoria relating to the business of supply. The question is on the motion. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House]

56 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:12:17 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion lost.

5 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-232 under Private Members' Business.

37 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:24:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-232

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 62 minutes. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Labour; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Public Safety; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/18/22 4:25:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format. While I am on my feet, I move: That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

54 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:26:10 p.m.
Watch

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to please rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. opposition House leader.

42 words

Division

Mr. John Brassard

May/18/22 4:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/18/22 4:26:42 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/18/22 5:10:47 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

Hon. Marci Ien

May/18/22 5:11:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 456 to 460.

22 words

All Topics

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

May/18/22 5:11:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the representative of the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap, as always. Finally, after three days of delay, I get to speak to Bill C-14. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The bill before us today proposes measures to ensure that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. This proposal is not without precedent. There have been times when the House has agreed to adjust its system of redistribution to ensure that provinces do not lose seats in redistribution, and this is the essence of the legislation we are assessing today. It is not the first time the House has debated this long-standing question: What are the objectives and factors for adjusting or creating federal electoral districts? In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the question, precipitated by a redistribution process in Saskatchewan for adjusting electoral boundaries. In its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated: The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind. The court highlighted the ideal of a “free and democratic society” upon which the charter is founded. The Supreme Court also wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’. The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one.” Basing voting power or parity on mathematical calculations of populations is important, but these are not the only factors for the House to consider. On June 1, 1872, 150 years ago, the House was debating factors for proposed adjustments to representation in the House of Commons, and Prime Minister John A. Macdonald told the House, “while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of numbers should not be the only one.” In the 1991 Saskatchewan case, the Supreme Court further explained reasons why parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to consider in ensuring effective representation. In 1991, the Supreme Court wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors. First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible. Secondly, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation. As we examine this bill's legislative proposals for our system of redistribution and determining representation provided to each province, I would like to reflect on effective representation. What did the Supreme Court mean when it wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’”? The court provided some answers to this question in 1991, when it stated: Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed. When I reflect on this statement from the court, I see the court highlighting the importance of social fabric and the threads of culture, history, geography and identities interwoven in social fabrics of specific communities, regions and constituencies. I agree that these factors must be considered as constituencies are created or redistributed and as the boundaries of electoral districts are redrawn. Whether we are talking about political boundaries or boundaries such as those the government is drawing on our oceans in a desperate effort to deliver campaign promises, we must reflect on what the purpose is of drawing lines and what the realities are of the societies or waters that we draw lines through. While the Supreme Court stated in 1991 that the determination of political representation and adjustment of electoral boundaries should support the pursuit of “effective representation”, I believe there are some important points to be made today, in 2022, regarding effective representation. Canadians depend on us, their elected representatives, to function in the House as their voices, their advocates and their representatives. Effective representation, I believe, is dependent on each of us being open to the Canadians we represent so that we can understand and advocate for their ever-evolving needs and priorities. That is what each of us as individual members can do to support effective representation and the Canadians who depend on us to do so. However, and I hope members on all sides agree with me on this point, our ability to deliver effective representation to Canadians is severely hampered when Parliament is shuttered and the House of Commons sits silent in adjournment. Last year, in 2021, the House sat for just 95 days. In 2020, the House sat for 86 days. Yes, in 2020, the House's operation was hampered by the arrival of the pandemic. Yes, in 2021, the Prime Minister chose to trigger an unnecessary election and then delayed the return of Parliament for nine weeks. At a time of unprecedented crisis, the Prime Minister chose to shutter one platform that we all need to deliver effective representation to Canadians. It is clear why the House was reduced in its function as a forum for effective representation in 2020 and 2021. However, the same cannot be said for 2019, when the House sat for a mere 75 days, even fewer days than in 2020 and 2021. To put things in a historical perspective, from 1945 to 1975, the House sat an average of 138 days each year. From 1975 to 2015, the House sat for an average of 123 days each year. As we assess the legislation before us today, I hope all members can reflect on the objective that I hope we all share: the goal of providing effective representation for all Canadians. Let us also reflect on the essential role the House plays in facilitating effective representation by providing representatives the forum in which to represent. It is not enough to champion effective representation only in today's debate; we must pursue it every day. While the House was shuttered, I used my time to connect with constituents and hear their concerns in order to be more effective when Parliament resumed sitting. Let us never sit idly by while the Prime Minister shutters the House, which we need for doing our jobs.

1237 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 74