Bill C-459 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day Act
An Act to establish a Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day and to recognize the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 as an act of genocide
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleMay 27, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 27, 2008
- Passed the second chamberMay 27, 2008
- Became lawMay 29, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- A. Raynell AndreychukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- James Bezan3 interventions in debateHe introduced the bill and thanked members for supporting it during debate.
- Joy Smith2 interventions in debateShe explicitly stated her support for the bill and its commemoration of the Holodomor.
- Jim AbbottHe described the bill's call to recognize the famine as genocide and its historical context.
- Andrew TelegdiHe affirms without reservation that the famine was a genocide and agrees with the colleague's statements on it.
- Meili FailleShe thanked colleagues and spoke in favor of recognizing the famine through the bill.
- Bernard BigrasHe thanked the sponsor and spoke positively about the bill's purpose and Ukraine's progress.
- Judy Wasylycia-LeisShe said no one disagrees with the bill and urged it to pass without delay.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (689 words introduced, 670 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of creating a memorial day and recognizing the Holodomor as genocide, but the preamble was expanded and several phrases were softened or updated. The short title and day name were revised to include the term Holodomor.
- Italy was dropped from the list of recognizing countries.
Before: “parliaments of Argentina, Austria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and the United States of”
After: “parliaments of Argentina, Austria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the United States of America”
- Reference to the UN convention was shortened and reworded.
Before: “as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948, condemns all war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides;”
After: “as a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948, condemns all genocides;”
- Short title and memorial day name were updated to include Holodomor.
Before: “Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day Act”
After: “Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day a”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The operative text uses a fixed calendar rule and an explicit negative statement to create a named day without legal effects. No subjective language, undefined terms or discretionary powers appear in the enacted provisions.
Clear-cut
“Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the fourth Saturday in November shall be known as "Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day".”
Fixes an objective, recurring date using a precise weekday rule rather than a vague standard.“For greater certainty, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day is not a legal holiday or a non-juridical day.”
Uses an express negative clause to eliminate ambiguity about legal consequences.“This Act may be cited as the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memo”
Provides a defined short title that removes any doubt about the statute’s name.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the designation is self-executing.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates no duties or restrictions and therefore engages no Charter rights in a manner that would support a vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. The statute imposes no obligations or prohibitions, so no factual dispute about breach can arise.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.