Debates of Jan. 27th, 2014

Respect for Communities Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his health-related question, which is relevant to our debate. Since we were elected, we have been saying that the Conservative government is not listening to or consulting Canadians. This government refuses to sit down with the provinces and discuss the agreement that is coming to an end in March, just a few months away. We know that this government does not care about the health of Canadians; it cares about the economy. However, without health, there is no economy. That is why we are once again asking the current government to change course and listen to Canadians who are saying, loud and clear, that their top priorities are health and health.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her speech.

The Canadian Medical Association is opposed to Bill C-2 and therefore supports the NDP's position. The Canadian Nurses Association also supports the NDP's position. I would like my colleague, who has plenty of experience in the health field, to tell us why it is important to oppose this bill in order to defend public health.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent question.

This is a very important issue for health care professionals. This bill is an attempt to hamper potential applications to open safe injection sites even though the sites have had a positive impact on the health of intravenous drug users and on community safety. That has been proven internationally, and no one is questioning it. This bill, however, focuses on criteria and arbitrary decisions. It is appalling to us that a minister would be given the power to decide whether or not a site can open. For that be happening in this House, under a Conservative government—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity in 2014 to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-2, which is an important bill.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year, Mr. Speaker. Happy new year to all the members of the House of Commons and all Quebeckers and Canadians.

What do people wish for in the new year? They wish for good health.

The government's most important role is to look after the health and safety of its people. We are talking about public health and safety. Here we are again dealing with a Conservative government that has taken an extremely ideological position, a position that may well do away with centres or prevent the creation of more centres that improve public health and safety.

Instead of moving forward, the Conservative government is backtracking. Why? Because science, reality, facts and research are not important for this government. Indeed, we have seen this with employment insurance. No impact studies were done. The government is gutting everything. We have also seen it with the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. No impact studies were done. In addition, no rational and logical arguments could explain that decision.

Once again, when it comes to justice and public safety, the Conservatives are more inclined to rely on fear, on the prejudices and fears of some people, rather than on real results and documented experiments. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-2.

This is the second time I have had an opportunity to address my colleagues on this bill. I am going to repeat the same arguments and hope that I can hammer them in, like a nail. Basically, Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled and almost crass attempt to put an end to the work and practices of supervised injection sites. Right now, there is only one site in Canada: the site in Vancouver known as InSite.

The bill would allow the minister to come up with a list of criteria that is so long, detailed and onerous that in the end it would practically prohibit the sites.

It is odd because this goes completely against the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court ruling. According to the Supreme Court, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government was to uphold the exception under the law for maintaining the supervised injection sites, so that people with addictions can get this type of help. It is their right to have access to it. The law must not ban this in any way.

The government is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by putting up obstacles to ensure that similar sites are not set up in Toronto, Montreal or other cities, even though public health authorities want to have the opportunity of copying what is being done in Vancouver. Why? Because it is working. Most importantly, it saves lives. We are looking at legislation that might prevent us from saving lives in Toronto, Montreal or other major urban centres in Canada.

The NDP thinks that facts and studies should be the foundation for public policy making. We cannot play with people's lives by fearmongering. More than 30 studies published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described the benefits of InSite in Vancouver.

I have no idea what it is going to take to convince the government. Thirty studies published in the top international medical journals in the world is not enough. Doctors are unanimous and the Canadian Nurses Association is unanimous. However, the government does not want to hear it and is incapable of listening or seeing reality when it does not fall in line with its regressive Conservative ideology.

What is more, studies on more than 70 injection sites in Europe or Australia have observed similar benefits to the ones we see at InSite. It is therefore not an exception.

The NDP believes that other centres can provide similar services. Appropriate supervision would help our constituents.

The Conservatives say that it makes no sense to help people to inject themselves with drugs. However, we know where those people are going to do it if they do not do it at a supervised injection site. They are not going to stop doing it. They will go into back alleys and parks. Then our children will be in danger of coming across contaminated syringes, pricking themselves with them and becoming ill, when it all could have been avoided with something quite simple.

Sometimes, things happen in ways that do not seem to be purely coincidental. For example, last month, the day after the session of Parliament came to an end, Canada Post was announcing all its cuts to services for Canadians. An hour later, the Minister of Transport had already sent out her media release saying that she was in agreement. Perhaps it was a coincidence, but it seems as though a lot of information is being exchanged with a public institution that is supposed to be independent of government.

What happened after Bill C-2 was introduced as a way to rally the Conservative base? We saw a Conservative campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. It was launched on their website. It was important to support Bill C-2 because it was going to keep heroin away from our children. However, the opposite is true. The opposite has been proven and documented. We are going to say it over and over again in the hope that the Conservatives will finally listen to reason.

What exactly has happened in Vancouver since the site opened? We have seen deaths by overdose drop by 35%. That is a direct effect. Why did the authorities in Vancouver decide to open the injection site? They did so because there had been a huge increase in the number of deaths by overdose between 1987 and 1992, a twelve-fold increase. At the time, the Vancouver area was also seeing a dramatic rise in the rates of communicable diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C, and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users.

The centre was opened and we started seeing a tangible change very quickly. The centre has helped reverse the trend of overdose deaths, which had been on the rise. The number is now going down. This is socially accepted in the community, in the area, and by police officers, more than 80% of whom support the existence of InSite. The site does not simply meet the needs of a drug addict. It also tries to help that individual recover from their addiction.

In 2007, the OnSite detox centre was added to the facility. People who go to the InSite supervised injection centre are nearly twice as likely to enrol in a detox program than someone who uses drugs in the street, alley or park.

In 2008, InSite's exemption under section 54 expired, and the Minister of Health asked InSite to renew the exemption. This decision triggered a series of trials that must have cost taxpayers a lot of money. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that InSite should receive another exemption. The federal government took the case to the Court of Appeal, then, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its clients' rights, as guaranteed by the charter. It also declared that the minister's decision was, “arbitrary...because it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA — the protection of health and public safety.”

The Supreme Court of Canada based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court stated:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for Insite cannot be ignored. These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the Minister’s decision based on a reconsideration of the same facts.

After the court rendered its decision, public health authorities and organizations in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal made plans and asked to open safe injection sites. They know that. Public health authorities in those municipalities are saying that the sites fulfill a need, that they will improve the social fabric and the ties people have with one another, that they will reduce the risk for children and that they will save lives.

I have a hard time understanding why the Conservative government keeps going when it is clearly moving in the wrong direction with Bill C-2.

The Canadian Medical Association said the following:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

The NDP believes that peoples' lives and public safety should be our main concern. That is why we must fight Bill C-2, which is a step in the wrong direction.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who has young children, if there are currently areas in Montreal where he does not let his children play at certain times of the day. Does he feel that opening safe injection sites might make those areas a little safer? There could be used syringes in the areas where children might be playing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

I am lucky to be the father of a blended family that includes four children aged three to 13. Depending on their age, they are sometimes allowed to play in the alley. We do not let the three-year-old play there alone much.

Obviously it is something we are concerned about. I live in a densely populated urban area where there are problems with drug use and addiction. We have a lovely alley behind our house—it is not green yet, but we will try to work on it—but my partner and I and the neighbours check it out before the kids go play there to make sure there are no needles or broken glass or things like that. We do the same thing when we go to the park. We worry about the sandbox because it could easily hide something dangerous buried under the sand. That is something we worry about.

If we knew there were fewer needles in public places thanks to a supervised injection site, that would be somewhat reassuring.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who once again raised the NDP's concerns about this bill, which would create major obstacles and, like many of this government's bills, would give a single minister powers that would better be shared more democratically.

These decisions should never be left up to a single minister because, as we have seen, in many cases, that person does not fulfill his or her responsibility and is not accountable. It is always someone else's fault.

My colleague has brought this issue up in the House many times, so would he care to comment on the fact that this bill once again gives the minister control over a number of decisions, for example the decision of whether to accept or reject applications for safe injection sites?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Indeed, this Conservative government has an unfortunate tendency to concentrate power in the hands of ministers or of the Prime Minister. That is what is happening here. This leads to a growing number of situations where they can act arbitrarily and say: “I made this decision. That is it and that is all.”

It is always the same thing. The government avoids consulting, it avoids taking into consideration the views of experts, and it avoids commissioning studies by experts who would inform us objectively and rationally on what should be done.

In the past, we saw dangerous concentrations of power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and, recently, in the hands of the Minister of Labour regarding the definition of danger in the area of health and safety for workers under federal jurisdiction.

This is a shift toward more powers in the hands of ministers. It is also a shift toward arbitrariness and that is really regrettable.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are here for the first time this year, allow me to wish a happy new year to you, to my colleagues, to the staff of the House of Commons and to the people at home.

At the beginning of the year, we make resolutions. Mr. Speaker, you inspire us with good resolutions every day when you begin with the prayer asking the Almighty to give us the wisdom to make good laws, if I am not mistaken.

This is what should guide us in this debate and in the debates on every bill. We are only here for a while. What will history remember of our Parliament? How will we have conducted our debates? What legislative legacy will we leave? I would not want people to remember that confusion prevailed, or that we did not act in the best interests of all Canadians. The fact is that everyone wants our society to thrive, to prosper and to be happy. I do not think we wish anything else.

This brings us to an important question. How do we define public interest in a bill, and in this one in particular? I want to quote American journalist Walter Lippmann, when he spoke about public interest, because the definition of that expression is very subjective. Here is a taste:

The public interest may be presumed to be what [people] would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally and acted disinterestedly and benevolently.

We could add to that the ability to see the long-term results of action taken. Clearly, this is a little utopian and unrealistic. However, that is the direction we should be pursuing when considering a bill like this one.

This bill clearly shows the tectonic plates that are grinding against one another, in other words, people's values, which are not necessarily the same, and the law, which the Supreme Court clearly defined, when we are talking about the right to life, liberty or security, and the desired result or what we understand of an action, bill or institution.

Beyond everything else we could say, the real question we should be asking ourselves is this: are we going in the right direction? Will this bill, as it is currently written, allow us to improve the plight of our communities? That is the important question. If we vote for this bill, are we improving the plight of our diverse communities?

Here on this side of the House, we believe that things can be done differently. It is always a little strange to see such conflicting actions. This government boasts about eliminating red tape, but this bill introduces more red tape. The government is not very consistent. I do not know where it is going with this.

Is the government using red tape as a smoke screen, to hide its real intentions? I do not know. However, is creating red tape on an issue of public health really the best way to serve Canadians and our communities?

However, we have a lot of tools at our disposal here in the 21st century. We have knowledge that our ancestors did not have. We have a professional, coherent and non-partisan public administration to help us in our decision-making. I have the impression that we are taking a step backward, rather than moving forward, when it comes to putting public policy together.

Let me give you some examples where I think the government is not necessarily moving in the right direction to illustrate what I mean by that because public interest really is at the heart of this bill.

We have a beautiful bridge in my riding, the Quebec Bridge, that is being left to rust. Is it in the public interest to reduce the lifespan of a metal bridge that is also an image on postcards in my region? Some would say that it is in the public interest to do so, but I do not think it is. Public interest is preserving, maintaining, and taking care of our infrastructure, not being involved in legal wrangling.

Take funding post-secondary studies for example. We say we want to live in a knowledge society. Are we doing what it takes to make post-secondary education accessible to anyone who wants it, regardless of financial capabilities? The question can be asked now. I would like to know that we are contributing to a society where everyone has the opportunity to grow.

Here is where I make the link to Bill C-2. We have constituents who have a serious problem with hard drugs. The current solutions are helping those people to get off the drugs. What does the government do? It chooses to forget that, look away, play partisan politics , withdraw into certain values and not accept reality and see what it could do better. I find that fundamentally deplorable.

Beyond everything we want to do and everything we want, the wisdom to pass legislation in the public interest every day is characterized by the sincere desire to sometimes set aside our own personal perspectives.

We all have opinions on anything and everything, and our values influence our decisions. However, we are not here to promote our values. We are here to serve the public and to look beyond our own individual thoughts to make suggestions that would improve the life for the Canadians we each represent, in each of our different ridings. The public interest is what should guide our actions here.

I have serious doubts that we are headed in the right direction in this case, especially since the government is not respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court decision with Bill C-2. I would have liked the government to find a solution within the parameters set by the Supreme Court. However, that is not the case. Did the Supreme Court go against public interest? Is that truly what my colleagues think? I do not think so. I believe that the Supreme Court set parameters in order to determine the direction we should take. Unfortunately, this bill does not contribute to the public interest.

I would like to be able to say that this bill may improve public safety, but I am not convinced, since needles will end up all over the place. I would like to be able to say that this bill would contribute to public safety, but the government is throwing people whose only desire is to satisfy a temporary, urgent need out onto the street. I would like to be able to say that this bill is full of wisdom, but is it wise to want to go backwards and to refuse to listen to experts? Is it wise to not do something that is already considered around the world to be a good practice? Unfortunately, I think that the Conservative government got it wrong.

I thank the public for listening to my speech. I hope that everyone will have the wisdom to vote for good legislation in 2014.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for reminding us to choose our words wisely. We must think things through before making decisions for the common good.

I would like to point out that InSite is innovative. It meets the needs of the community and it came out of the Vancouver community. When it comes to health, we have to be more and more innovative. I think that Canada is a country that could be innovative and play a leadership role. What is more, we are not alone. This type of site has been set up in a number of cities in Europe and Australia. These sites have been recognized as helping vulnerable groups. They are accepted by the community because they improve the health of their clients, reduce the numbers of overdose deaths, and reduce drug use in public, open spaces.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the innovativeness of a centre like InSite and the importance of it being community-based. It is too bad that a bill like C-2 would eliminate a good initiative.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her insightful remarks. It goes to show how fortunate our society is.

In Canada, we live in a wealthy and educated society. Earlier I was talking about post-secondary education. I think that my colleague would agree that we have the means to provide our constituents with all the innovation, technology and cutting-edge knowledge humanity possesses. We are that fortunate. We have the knowledge and the means to show leadership in problem-solving, regardless of the problem. In this case we are talking about addictions and prevention. We want to be able to contain certain unfortunate practices. My colleague is right to say that we must focus more on innovation. She is also right to say that we must move forward and implement modern solutions. She is right to say that we must use our knowledge for the good of the people.

Situation in Ukraine

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the situation in Ukraine.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

moved:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing this very important debate this evening. It is of urgency, not only and specifically to the Ukrainian people but also to the very strong, committed Ukrainian diaspora here in Canada.

Our government is very engaged in closely monitoring what is happening in Ukraine. We are consulting with our allies intimately in weighing all options, including sanctions. However, we need to be precise in our actions. That is the most important thing, because if we are not precise, ordinary Ukrainians will potentially be hurt by what we and other governments and our allies do.

I thank the Prime Minister for supporting this emergency debate. He said recently that Canada stands with the Ukrainian people during this difficult time and will continue to forcefully oppose all efforts to repress their rights and freedoms. In fact, our Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Maidan himself last month as well as speaking to his counterpart in Ukraine, expressing Canada's outrage about what is going on in Ukraine today, the killing, the intimidation of religious groups, the repealing of human rights and the Orwellian imposition of draconian laws.

I also had the opportunity to be in Ukraine in December, where I was observing the re-run elections and where I also had the opportunity to walk to Maidan on two different occasions. It was a tremendous opportunity to see how peaceful the protesters were, how well organized they were, and what their goals were in relation to the Ukrainian people.

This is a peaceful group of people who just want to reach out to their government and express the will of the majority of Ukrainians, that they would like to have closer association with the EU, a closer association with Europe. All they are asking for is the ability to choose their own fate, but what has often happened in Ukraine and is happening right now is the insidious creep of tyranny. This is something that concerns me, because we have seen it among repressive and authoritarian governments in other places in the world in the past. Ukraine has endured a bad time.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

The people of Ukraine would like to be able to move in that direction, but these draconian laws are stifling human rights. Following peaceful demonstrations the state is now applying violence where numbers of people, somewhere between seven and ten key leaders of the opposition movement, have turned up dead with evidence of torture on their bodies.

We have seen all over YouTube the videos of protesters being stripped, humiliated, beaten, shot with rubber bullets. We have seen journalists particularly targeted by rubber bullets to the head. This is an effort to stifle communications and opposition groups' ability to coordinate across the country. This is absolutely horrific, something that we cannot possibly fathom.

We saw the case of Tetyana Chornovil, someone who was run off the road, beaten senseless until she was believed to be dead and then abandoned. Fortunately, she survived the attack to tell her tale, and of course there is evidence from the webcam she had in her car. People have been arrested in connection with that. This situation is dramatic and ongoing, and we must fight tooth and nail against it and stand with the people of Ukraine, who only desire peace, freedom and democracy, just as any family in Canada would like. They want some prosperity and the ability to have a future, hope and options in their country.

That is what the EU provides. The EU provides options. It is not one or the other. It is something that is being imposed by external factors.

We in Canada have the NAFTA agreement and CETA. We have trade negotiations going on with other nations, and that is only healthy. It provides our nation with job building and economic opportunity and options that help not only to grow our own economy but also the economies of the other nations that we have agreements with. That is all the Ukrainians are asking for. It should not be one or the other, but the situation is being artificially and externally applied to them.

In fact, we recently saw Russia drop the price of Ukrainian gas dramatically. I said in our take note debate on December 10 that with one word from Mr. Putin the price of gas would drop, and lo and behold a week later it was dropped. That may not have been anything I said but it is definitely curious to me that it happened very quickly. As well Russia propped up Ukraine with the promise of $15 billion for its bonds. This is artificially applied pressure and something that unfortunately has led to a very serious and deteriorating situation in Ukraine, where protestors are now lying dead because live ammunition has been used against them.

There is also the issue of the repression of religious freedom. We have done something concrete. The Minister of Foreign Affairs dispatched our Ambassador for Religious Freedom, Andrew Bennett, to Ukraine over the weekend for him to investigate. The ambassador has reported back that a tremendous amount of oppression is going on.

This is a very dangerous precedent. The minister of culture in Ukraine has threatened the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church with dissolution. The last time that happened was in the 1940s when Joseph Stalin also threatened it with dissolution. This is harking back to very dark days that we thought we had moved past in Ukraine. Ukrainians do not deserve the kind of authoritarian template that is being imposed on them today, after two decades of seeking to improve their economy, to strengthen their democracy and to open up their economic options so that all people of Ukraine can benefit from that.

There is a set of elites in Ukraine dictating policy for their own selfish interests. They are subordinating the will and the prosperity of their fellow Ukrainian citizens to their own selfish interests. They are very few in number in Ukraine. This is a dangerous precedent because this will become a regime and then the benefits for a few will always outweigh the benefits for the majority. That cannot happen. Canada must stand with the Ukrainian people. We support their drive for freedom and democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and balanced justice and gender equality.

Ukrainians are not asking for much. They are just asking for the same things that we enjoy here in this country and that any western democracy enshrines in its own codes. This is something that the Ukrainian people now deserve and it is something that we have to help them achieve.

We will always condemn the horrible use of violence against the protestors in Ukraine.

We also note the crucial role played by the clergy and the faithful in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church and other religious leaders with whom we are encouraging dialogue.

We have a lot of work to do, but this is not all bad. A lot of the pressure that we are putting on Ukraine and its leaders right now has had some positive results. Tomorrow, Baroness Catherine Ashton will be working with Ukraine to bring forward a plan. Right now, the government is working with opposition members and is crafting a plan.

All of that is positive. However, we have yet to see the proof in all of this. We remain somewhat skeptical but optimistic. However, this government will retain its pressure on Ukrainian leaders. We will remain vocal. We will remain committed to the people of Ukraine. We will stand side by side with them until they achieve their goals of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. He gave a good overview of recent events in Ukraine. He talked passionately about his own point of view.

What we are grappling with now, and will be during this debate, is how to respond. Things are changing on the ground. Things are fluid, as was noted, and will continue to change.

We hope that tomorrow will bring some sort of resolution from the diplomatic efforts we have see by Baroness Ashton and others.

Last week, I wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and put forward a unanimous consent motion on Friday, which we eventually negotiated and saw the House pass today.

However, we wanted to see targeted sanctions. I think it is very clear, and I think my colleague will understand, that we really should have targeted sanctions on the leadership or people involved with what we have seen, the draconian laws and human rights abuses.

I would like to hear his point of view on that. Is it something he could agree to with us, that we have these targeted sanctions put in place?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support for the debate this evening. I think all members of the House are consumed with this. We all have constituents who are very concerned about what is going in Ukraine.

In responding to the hon. member, as I said in my remarks, our government is working very closely with all of our allies, the Americans, the EU, and others concerned in this regard.

In terms of targeted sanctions, they are definitely an option that is being considered, in accordance and in concert with our allies.

However, as I also said, it is crucial that when and if any of those options, including sanctions, are applied that they be applied with precision, so that the leadership and those being targeted are the ones affected and not innocent Ukrainian people.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for the Christmas season, I think one of the very final acts of official business that we conducted in the chamber was to debate the situation in Ukraine as it existed in early December.

At that time, in the debate, I raised, several times, this issue of targeted personal sanctions against Yanukovych and his inner circle, the need to apply pressure to encourage more democratic behaviour.

The government was not in a position to respond officially at that time back at the early part of December. However, it is now two months later and the situation has, sadly, deteriorated. The violence has become worse, and as the hon. member noted, even the Catholic Church is being threatened by certain actions by Yanukovych.

I would like to ask this question, not in any provocative way, but in the sense of building consensus, moving forward and getting ready to deal with the situation, to make it clear to Yanukovych that the world is watching, that we care and that we take this very seriously.

What specifically has the government been able to do over the course of the last two months to get ready for the application of personal targeted sanctions? For example, have the assets been identified? Do we know where they are? Have we opened a dialogue with European countries and the Americans to ensure that we can act with precision and in concert to make these provisions effective against Yanukovych's inner circle?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and, again, for his engagement in this issue, which is very important to the Ukrainian community in Canada.

As I said, we are, and have been for quite some time now, deeply involved with our allies to coordinate all of our efforts to ensure that precise measures are applied.

Also, a lot has happened in two months. Absolutely. In fact, as late as today, as I have just pointed out, there is dialogue happening between the government and the opposition forces. There is dialogue happening with the UN Secretary-General, who has offered himself as mediator. There is dialogue happening with the EU, with Baroness Ashton, now interacting with Mr. Yanukovych and his government.

A lot of that has to do with the pressure that we laid on, including the very pointed discussion that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has had with his counterpart in Ukraine , as well from having called in the Ukrainian ambassador and expressing Canada's outrage to him about what is occurring in Ukraine.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, dobry vechir. It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the concerns that all of us have with respect to what is happening in the Ukraine, and everything that has transpired, especially over the past week.

I want to thank you for granting the request of my friend and colleague, the member for Etobicoke Centre, to have this emergency debate tonight. We want to make sure we are raising awareness in Canada of the deteriorating circumstances, which we see on the news every minute and hour, of everything that is transpiring on the streets of Maidan in Kiev, and other communities in the Ukraine. We also want to demonstrate to the people and the government of Ukraine that Canada's Parliament is strongly opposed to all of the actions it has taken.

I want to thank all members in the House for the unanimous passing of the motion that I moved earlier today. It was done with great collaboration and negotiations, amongst all political parties, to come to a resolution that speaks to how we in Canada feel about the government of the Ukraine under the leadership of President Viktor Yanukovych, and the deterioration of civil rights, erosion of human rights, and the continued decline of democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine.

The motion we passed earlier today is that we condemn the draconian law that was passed on January 17. There was a small opportunity presented in the Ukraine earlier today, and we heard before the debate started tonight that the Yanukovych government is prepared to consider repealing that draconian law. We have to be careful here. Will it repeal the entire law that was passed, or only provide some cosmetic surgery to make it more appealing to us in the west without necessarily changing the way it is behaving, especially the way the Berkut, the riot police, are behaving on the streets of the Maidan. We want to make sure that what will be debated tomorrow in the Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, actually does repeal that entire piece of legislation, from the beginning to the last word in that act. That is what we want to see happen.

As I said in the motion that we agreed to earlier today, the Government of the Ukraine has to realize that the draconian law, which allows them to move forward with martial law, undermines freedom and democracy in the Ukraine. We must remember that Ukraine has lived under tyranny and dictatorship for most of the past several hundred years. It has only truly enjoyed freedom and democracy since it was able to peacefully proclaim independence in 1991. Here we are, almost 23 years later, and that democracy, which was so fragile, has been ruthlessly undermined by President Viktor Yanukovych and his government.

I was in Ukraine monitoring the presidential elections of 2010 when President Viktor Yanukovych won. I was back there in 2012 for the parliamentary elections. I can say that the people of Ukraine never voted for this type of governance. They want their voices to be heard. That is what the protests that have been taking place for the last two and a half months in Kiev and other cities are about. They are disappointed in their government. They are disappointed that it walked away from the European co-operative agreement and closer trade relationships with Europe. They are upset that the government of Ukraine continues to slide more and more, that it is becoming entrenched with the Russian government, that it is not acting as a free and independent country, and that it is quashing the civil liberties, rights and freedoms of everyone who lives in Ukraine.

Earlier today, we all condemned the violence. We are saddened by the deaths that have occurred. We know there are hundreds of innocent protesters, many of whom have been targeted by using cellphones. Journalists have been specifically targeted, as have academics. As we often see in dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, those who are in power go after the intellects. These people have been imprisoned, and we have not heard from them.

We know about the people who were killed on the streets. At least two of them were killed by sniper fire. Despite this, we have not heard about the others who have been arrested. There are allegations that they have been tortured.

We have not heard about what is happening with so many who were arrested in hospital. After some of the riots occurred on the streets of Kiev, people went to the hospital to get treatment. The police came in, arrested them and denied them treatment. Many of them were taken outside the city and dumped in the forest. We know of at least one death that resulted from that.

We want to express our condolences to the friends and families who have lost their loved ones. We saw one of the funerals yesterday and how everyone rallied around and proclaimed him a hero.

The Ukrainian government, and probably the International Criminal Court, has to look into what has occurred here. Those who are responsible for the violence and brutality against innocent activists have to be brought to justice. They have to face the consequences and be held to account.

We are going to continue to call on Ukraine. Tomorrow, in the Ukrainian parliament, MPs will have their debate and hopefully repeal that entire draconian law. However, the Ukrainian security forces have to be removed from the streets. They have to allow the people the chance to take a step back, evaluate the situation, and continue with their peaceful protests until the government respects their wishes. We have to see that happen.

A lot of questions are going to be asked tonight about what actions we can take as a nation. The Government of Canada is engaged with like-minded nations in Europe, as well as the United States and others, to bring an international resolution, one that can turn the tables on the current government to allow it to make the right decisions and start working toward a new election. It should make sure that the election laws it has been gerrymandering for the last two years are fixed so that Ukraine can have free and fair elections for the presidential elections at the end of this year.

There is a lot of work to be done. It has to be done on a diplomatic level. We are starting to see some of those diplomatic interventions coming to bear. Our ambassador of religious freedom, Andrew Bennett, is on the ground, looking at the whole issue of the attack on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and how it has been singled out and threatened for providing pastoral services to its parishioners and others who are on the street.

I am glad we were able to pass this resolution earlier today. I know that all of us stand united in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We know that Canadian Ukrainians across the country are watching the events unfold very carefully. I have been providing a lot of advice, and I say to them and the people of Ukraine, Slava Ukraini.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before to previous speakers, this is something we want to work together on. We want to see action.

One of the things I talked about earlier was targeted sanctions. We had hoped to have that in the unanimous consent motion that we passed today. However, we will talk about that further.

It is not only that we should have targeted sanctions, for obvious reasons, but we want to make sure the government uses the tools it has to get at the problem. The problem right now is that we have certain actors within the Ukraine government who are abusing their power and the monopoly of violence they have at their behest.

There is one other thing, and I want to put it to my friend. We have been asked by others for travel bans. That is something we called for when we had egregious laws passed by the Duma in Russia, to have targeted and focused visa bans on those legislators who were responsible for those laws.

I wonder if the member would be in favour of visa and travel bans. Would the government be in favour of working with the Red Cross and using our embassy to help people who have been injured? We know some of the medical facilities have been shut down. Protestors have been hurt; some have been killed. Would the government be willing to look at that as something we could do?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, civil society here in Canada, as well as all sorts of non-government organizations like the Red Cross, are great organizations. The government should be engaging and working along with them. How any of those organizations that go over there would be received is hard to say.

We definitely have to make sure that every diplomatic tool is evaluated and looked at. We want to make sure that as we go forward in collaboration with our international partners that we are very precise in bringing about the change that we and the people of Ukraine want to see. First and foremost, this is about the people of Ukraine and respecting their will.

We have to make sure that how we move forward is going to bring about that change most effectively. We want to make sure that any action we take does not result in any unintended consequences that will hurt the people of Ukraine.

We will be collaborating and working very closely. Hopefully, we will see a concerted effort to have a very powerful resolution that will make the changes that all of us so desperately desire.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his comments and his obvious concern about the situation in Ukraine.

I will leave the issue of targeted sanctions aside for just a moment. I take it that the government is actively examining how to do this in concert with allies. I hope the suggestion is taken seriously and constructively.

There are two other ideas that I think could be very helpful in these circumstances, and I wonder what the government's reaction is to them. First, there could be a special expedited and no-cost Canadian visa regime available to injured protestors if they needed to leave the country to receive medical treatment, for example, to family members of protestors who have been killed, and to family members of protest organizers whose lives may be in jeopardy. Would the government consider an expedited no-cost visa regime to allow these people to easily leave Ukraine and come to Canada in these very difficult circumstances?

Second, would the government consider a team of very high-level senior observers to be sent, through our embassy in Kiev, to scrutinize and document the police behaviour, court proceedings against protestors, and the treatment of the injured as they are brought into and managed in hospitals, and to monitor bodies arriving in Kiev morgues? Would that team of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those are great ideas. I know a lot of ideas are coming forward from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and others, who have boots on the ground and are watching everything unfold.

I know that our ambassadors, Ambassador Troy Lulashnyk, and Ambassador Andrew Bennett, the ambassador for religious freedoms, are monitoring and putting together detailed reports. Many of us have been getting some of the reports, both from the media and the Department of Foreign Affairs, as to how things are unfolding.

It is critical at this point. Ukraine stands at a crossroads. We have to be there to help in supporting them to come to the right decision, both from a government standpoint and definitely respecting the will of the people of Ukraine.

Again, I thank the Speaker for having this emergency debate.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring forward our party's position and to debate with my colleagues the situation in Ukraine. It was just recently, before the House rose for the Christmas break, that we were actually seized with this issue. At that time we had a take note debate, and now we are debating an emergency motion about the situation in Ukraine.

We are focused tonight not only on what is happening on the ground, and I will talk about that, but also on what we can do. I said, when I rose in December and spoke to the issue during the take note debate, that we had to ensure that the dream of the Ukrainian people would not be stolen. I was referring to the dream they had in 2004—when those historic elections happened, when many Canadians were on the ground ensuring there were fair elections—would not be taken away. That is what we are talking about and debating tonight. That is what the people of Ukraine are doing in frigid temperatures, with a fairly aggressive response. They are peacefully demonstrating to ensure that their dream is not taken away, that no one is going to extinguish the dream that we take for granted here. That is the right to assemble, to have fairness and a democratic system that would actually be represented in its legislative affairs.

That is not what is happening now. As we were debating in the House of Commons in December, there were demonstrations happening in real time. The response from the government was to crack down and use the force of the police against peaceful demonstrators. We have seen this descent into chaos because of a repugnant response by the Ukrainian government.

December 10, as we were debating this, was exactly when the Ukrainian officials were using force to dismantle the peaceful demonstrations by everyday Ukrainians. Five days later the EU commissioner stated that the Ukrainian government would not sign the EU agreement that President Yanukovych had said he would sign. In fact, we hoped we would see the Ukrainian government embrace and re-engage with the EU to sign an economic agreement with it, which is what the promise was. It turned its back not just on the agreement but on the Ukrainian people. What we saw directly after that was President Yanukovych and Putin signing a $15 billion loan package and gas deal that sells out several of the strategic sectors of Ukraine's economy and contains provisions regarding the Black Sea fleet and policing. In other words, Ukraine went from going to engage with the EU, which is what people wanted to see and the people of Ukraine were asking for, and it pivoted over to sign a deal with Mr. Putin and sell out many of the assets and oversight of the Ukrainian people to an exclusive couple.

This is why we believe targeted sanctions are necessary. Make no mistake; we are talking about the theft of many of the riches and resources out of Ukraine being spirited over the border, mostly in places like Europe, we hear. Clearly we can send a signal here to say, “If you are responsible for the heinous crackdown we have seen on innocent protestors then your finances are not welcome here”. We will bring in sanctions. We will bring in travel bans here because Canada has to be strong and resolute with the Ukrainian people. That is exactly what we are talking about here today.

That is why last week I wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and asked him to consider sanctions, to be very clear and declarative about our abhorrence of the use of violence against everyday protestors and about the draconian laws that were just passed on the 16th.

Further to that, on Friday I engaged with the government about passing a unanimous consent motion, which we put forward. We negotiated with the government, and we did pass the motion today. I had put forward the language from our party, which we did not pass, but we negotiated with the government to pass the motion.

Our motion actually said that this House condemns the killing and injuring of peaceful protestors and other alarming violations of freedom of speech and association in Ukraine and requests that the Government of Canada take strong action in consultation with our international partners, including individual sanctions against those responsible for human rights abuses, repressive measures and violent crackdowns. What we had in our motion, which the Conservatives decided not to embrace yet and we will continue to try to convince them, is that we should have individual sanctions.

Just as an aside, it is important to note that we do not have to pass a law to bring in individual sanctions. Through the Special Economic Measures Act, the government can do it on its own. So this could have happened in December if the government chose. This is not something that is difficult to do; it is whether the Conservatives want to do it, and I strongly encourage them to do so.

However, we also have to look at what other actions we can add to the toolkit. Not only would I like to look at visa bans and of course the sanctions, but we need to work with our colleagues. By the way, the U.S. has already brought in visa bans. That should be of note. However, we need to work with our friends in the EU, and we hope that negotiations with the EU, which we hear are going to take place tomorrow, are successful. However, we have seen this before. As members know, the member for Churchill went to Kiev and tried to convince the government to change its ways. There was a promise by the government at that time that it would engage with the EU, but we saw that it went back on that promise. We need to work in concert with our allies.

I give credit to the Ukrainian Canadian community for organizing and for being resolute and putting forward ideas that we can look to embrace. In particular, all of us were sent a brief by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. It put forward some ideas we should look at, and we have already discussed some of them.

The brief recommends that our Prime Minister directly call President Yanukovych, demanding that he bring an end to the state-sanctioned killings, violence, reprisals and intimidation. He could offer for Canada to serve as a mediator to bring a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Canada is widely respected in Ukraine. I have already mentioned our past in terms of the 2004 election. We have been there, so we should offer that.

It is calling for sanctions: the imposition of visa restrictions and travel bans for those who are responsible for these horrific crackdowns.

It says that the Canadian embassy could be there to assist, if need be, with medical treatment of those who have been hurt or injured.

It suggests we expedite visas and asylum for those who are needing to flee.

It recommends that we also look at ensuring that—though it is not always possible, but we put the ideas forward—if Canada can, it send independent observers to document what is going on, as was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues.

These are very straightforward propositions put forward by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. However, Ukrainian Canadians have been very focused on the fact that we have to be vigilant about what Yanukovych is putting forward. I say this with all respect to another government. When we have a president like President Yanukovych who has said he would embrace and engage with the EU and then does not and has said he will negotiate openly and then does not, we have to be very careful and cautious in how we respond when he says he is going to pull back the draconian laws. That is what we are just hearing as of half an hour ago. We have to ensure that actually happens. Also, when he says he would have power-sharing and share the office of the prime minister with the opposition leader, we have to remind Mr. Yanukovych what the protestors and the people are saying. It is not for him to decide who the prime minister is. It is not for him to decide whether laws that are retrograde should go forward. It is what the people of the Ukraine demand. That is why there are elections.

In the elections before Christmas, there were many reports of abuse. The 2004 elections were about finally allowing the Ukrainian people to have their voices heard, with the international community there.

Make no mistake about what the Ukrainian Canadians and the Ukrainians are saying. They are saying, "Do not just do deals, President Yanukovych. Actually act and open the door to the people of Ukraine and their demands". That is what this is about. It is not about cutting deals or about power-sharing. The opposition has been very careful not to fall into that trap.

We believe, on this side of the House, that when it comes to Canada's position and what we are projecting to the world, it is important that we are clear and definitive. I say with pride that, when we had our study on Ukraine, we as a party joined with other members of Parliament to bring forward a report on Ukraine. One of the things we put forward that was a bit different from the other parties—and we were the only party to put this forward—was a supplementary report. As the House knows, that is when members of Parliament from other parties decide they will add something to a report.

We were in concert with the recommendations of the report at the time, but we said the NDP believed we need to wait for any proposed trade deal, which the government was looking at with Ukraine, until such time as we can determine that there were free, fair and transparent elections that were accepted by international standards. Additionally, the release of all political prisoners would have to happen, because this is something we value highly.

We cannot enter into trade agreements with governments that are abusing their power. It is important to be clear about that. We are not saying we do not want to trade; we are saying that if one is going to trade with our country, one has to abide by certain basic democratic principles and human rights. This is something we were clear about when we reported to Parliament about Ukraine prior to our recent debates.

There is another thing I would like to mention. In November, after we saw the government of Ukraine's abuse of power, we issued a statement on November 25, calling on the government to restrain itself and release its political prisoners. We followed that up on December 10 with the debate we had here and we put out a statement asking for the same thing. On January 17, we condemned the repressive use of violence by the government of Ukraine. I sent a letter to Minister Baird on January 21, as I mentioned, asking him to consider some of the actions I have just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are giving me the nod for time—