Debates of Oct. 29th, 2018

Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the member actually disagree with what I said, that everybody we met in the Palestinian territories, if asked the question, expressed that they did not support BDS.

I do want to ask the member a particular question about his discussion of the concept of occupation. I ask this genuinely. It is an important question. Does the member think there is ever a case where international law ought to sanction the idea of occupation?

I ask that question because my grandmother lived under occupation when she was living in western Germany after the Second World War. The area was occupied by the allies, and despite the very real suffering that people experienced, she was glad for that occupation because it meant the end of Nazi rule.

There are many different cases which require subtlety in distinguishing. The member has tried to lump the occupation of Crimea with the situation in West Bank and Gaza. I wonder if the member thinks, based on some of the examples we have talked about, if there is ever a case where international law ought to permit occupation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very broad and hypothetical question that would be very difficult to answer in one minute.

I will say that the concept of occupation usually occurs when there is a military skirmish and territory has been gained or lost by one side or the other. I think the international order recognizes that could be the case.

The fourth Geneva Convention is crystal clear. A state is not allowed to annex territory acquired by war. A state is not permitted to move its own population into occupied territories and take over that territory. Finally, a state is not allowed to move indigenous people who are native to a land in mass form in the territories that they are occupying.

I think everybody of good faith and fair mind would agree that the concept of occupation is meant to be temporary, until conditions have been stabilized and a political solution can be reached. I do not think that could be said 51 years after 1967. Not too many occupations, including after World War II, lasted 51 years. The allies were occupying Germany. They stayed long enough until other institutions and sovereignty could be re-established in those areas, and the security and safety of institutions could be re-established, and then they left.

I do not know what my friend is saying. He seems to be making a case that one country can go into another country's territory, occupy it forever, and take over that territory. He does not seem to think there is a problem with that. If that is the case, we will just have to disagree.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member still has about a minute and 15 seconds left for questions and comments. We will be able to get back to it when the issue is before the House again.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Elections Modernization Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-76.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #908

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 17, 19 to 28, 33 to 36, 41 to 44, 50 to 74, 80 to 83, 85 to 92, 106 to 114, 116, 117, 120 to 130, 134 to 137, 139 to 146, 149 to 157, 159 and 163 to 179 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 29.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 45, 48 and 49. A negative vote on Motion No. 29 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 30 and 47.

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #909

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 29 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 45, 48 and 49 defeated.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on Motion No. 30. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 38, 46, 76 and 161.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #910

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 30 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 38, 46, 76 and 161 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 47. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting opposed.