House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ukrainian.

Topics

Support for Volunteer Firefighters ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 6:40 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from December 10, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us the quiet we need in the House to make a few comments about this bill, since it is a private member's bill and therefore no period for questions and answers is provided. It is too bad, because I would have liked to ask some questions. I will ask some during my speech and hope that they will be heard. Perhaps I will get some answers later.

This bill is rather odd. As we are entering a second hour of discussion on this bill, allow me to quickly put it into context again and provide another overview of the bill introduced by our colleague from New Brunswick Southwest, for those who are following us on CPAC or on other media.

Let us first look at the title: Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance). If I were a regular citizen seeing this at home, I would immediately think, “Finally, they are going to get rid of pensions for overpaid MPs”. However, that is not at all what this bill is about. That is why I want to set the record straight.

Bill C-518 revokes or would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament. The parliamentarian must have been indicted for an offence with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for not less than two years. The offence must have been committed, in whole or in part, while the person was an MP or senator.

That is more or less the idea behind this bill, which, I must say, comes at a curious time. Obviously, I can tell you right away that there is little chance that we will not vote in favour of this bill, because otherwise we would practically be saying that we are against virtue. However, while I would not say that drafting a bill that asks members of the House to obey the law is worthless, it does raise quite a few questions.

Among other things, it is amusing to see a bill come from the Conservatives that in some way deals with issues of ethics and honesty. In fact, the bill involves revoking pensions that are to be paid to elected officials should there be a serious omission or should they commit a serious crime that breaches a federal law.

Allow me to say that if the substantive principles of this bill make sense, the approach is somewhat suspicious, just like the timing of the bill's introduction. We might also wonder why this bill is so relevant now. From what I understand with my meagre experience of a few years as a parliamentarian, MPs usually table a private member's bill to solve a problem, fix a legislative loophole or clarify a particular local issue. The question here is: what situation is this bill trying to fix?

I will take the opposite approach. It seems entirely clear to me that the vast majority of MPs in the House, regardless of their political affiliation, are here for good reasons, despite their different perspectives on various bills and the direction our society should take. The vast majority of MPs serve quite honestly, to the best of their abilities and with an ultimate goal, which is to serve their constituents to the best of their knowledge and to the best of their convictions. Therefore, what is the purpose of this bill?

I get the feeling that this exercise is not about diversion or camouflage, but rather about image, in order to send the message that some Conservative members—and certainly the member for New Brunswick Southwest—want to address the scandals in the House of Commons, the government and the Senate.

I cannot help but recognize that most of the scandals we have been talking about for many weeks now do not involve my party. Still, I find the current juxtaposition of this bill rather strange.

I read the entire bill; it is only two pages long. I am by no means suggesting that a two-page bill is irrelevant. That is not what I am suggesting. However, it seems to me that someone who really cared about this issue would want to take the time to look much deeper.

For instance, Nova Scotia has a very similar bill. However, it is much more comprehensive than Bill C-518, which is being proposed today. I have to wonder if the sponsor really wants to solve a problem that he considers important, which it may very well be, as the misappropriation of funds has become increasingly comon in recent weeks. I will not dwell on these cases now, but perhaps I will give a couple of examples before the end of my speech.

If one really cared about this matter, it would only make sense to consult the case law, to consult similar legislation that exists in other countries and to consult the provinces. I just used the word “consult” three times, and I suspect I just created something. I am not quite sure what to call it; it is not quite an oxymoron. Let us just say that the word “consult” and the word “Conservative” do not flow together naturally for me.

I will give a very specific example. I would like to remind members that I will be voting in favour of this bill because we cannot be against virtue. If an MP or Senator has committed the acts warranting the penalties set out in Bill C-518—the loss of retiring allowances and other compensation—why is it that in Nova Scotia, for example, a minimum five-year sentence is required as compared to two years in the case of this bill?

Once again, it is probably to give the impression that this government is tough on crime and that it is going to take a hard line. I would like everyone to draw their own conclusions about that.

What seems to be missing in this bill, and leaves me quite perplexed, is that this income is not always the income of just that one person. I will explain. We are revoking the retirement income of an MP or senator, without including in the bill possible exceptions for the people who depend on this income.

For example, if the parliamentarian's child support payments are based directly on his or her income, a judge could review the support payments because the MP's or the senator's income has changed.

This means that this tough-on-crime bill for someone who commits fraud significantly affects more than just the person who committed the fraud. I have a serious problem with that.

The second problem I have with this bill is that it reminds me of something we have seen in many bills.

This bill establishes penalties for the person who commits the crime. We have seen this hundreds of times in other Conservative bills. Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit and getting carried away. However, this bill does nothing to prevent these situations.

Although we cannot be against virtue and we will be supporting this bill, it seems to me that it is designed solely to make a good impression and is an inappropriate solution.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's ending remarks concerning public relations.

One of the things I have found to be very topical, whether it is provincial politics or federal politics, is the issue of pensions.

I have had the opportunity to sit on different types of committees over the years to deal with the matter of pensions, on issues such as who should be entitled to a pension, what type of pension it might be, and so forth. In fact, as an MLA, I was involved in discussions as to how we could replace the pension program that we had in 1988. I can say that people are very much concerned about the pensions that politicians receive. We want aspiring politicians, and we recognize that they often sacrifice a great deal in order to have the privilege and opportunity to represent someone. However, there are always questions.

I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with political candidates in the past. One of the questions they often have is with respect to benefits, annual pay, and so forth. These are issues that one would expect to come up for anyone seeking elected office.

On the other hand, from the constituents' perspective, we find there is a certain caring attitude, of wanting to see fairness within the system.

I have seen a lot of change in the ways in which pensions have come into being. As I pointed out, back in 1988 when I was first elected, we had a pension program. It was something in the nature that one had to be successful in three consecutive elections, or to have been elected, I think it was for eight years, though I could be a bit out on that. However, then one would be able to receive a pension virtually immediately.

Some members of the public felt that was not an appropriate type of program for elected officials at the provincial level. There was a great deal of debate, and we ultimately formed a committee. That committee was made up of a group of interesting stakeholders. One of them, I believe, was Mr. Northcott, who is with Winnipeg Harvest. There was representation from management and union. What happened ultimately is that we lost the pension program in favour of matching RRSP contributions.

In the late 1990s, 2001, and 2002, there was a change. MLAs would make contributions, the government would match those contributions, and that would go into an RRSP.

When Gary Doer became the premier of Manitoba, he recognized there was a need to go back to government pensions, as opposed to matching RRSPs. That is ultimately what ended up happening.

Again, I have had the opportunity to listen in to some areas, and in other areas to get engaged, in terms of what sort of pension programming and benefits that MLAs should be entitled to.

One of the things I found to be important throughout the whole process was the need to provide assurances to the public that there is a proper way to deal with the benefits that MLAs receive. That is why I was quite pleased that the provincial Liberal Party was involved in terms of how we come up with the pay, benefits, and pension-related issues. Ultimately, pensions were then reformed in the province of Manitoba.

I say that because I have had the opportunity, through the leadership of the leader of the Liberal Party, to become engaged with the procedures and House affairs committee. There has been a lot of discussion there about benefits of members of Parliament, the Board of Internal Economy, and to a certain degree there are issues relating to pay.

One of the suggestions, from the perspective of the Liberal Party of Canada, is that we need to look at ways we can have more independence in terms of the setting of pensions and the salaries of members of Parliament. That was incorporated in our report. I must say it was a minority report; it did not receive the support from all parties. However, if we look at what our constituents would want, it is in the best interest of the House to see that independence in the setting of salaries for politicians. I suspect it will only be a question of time before that will be the case in Ottawa.

With Bill C-518, I understand what the member is proposing: Should an individual be denied a pension if they have been held criminally responsible? If we were to try to get a better understanding of the details of what the member is suggesting, I would be most interested in hearing that and having that dialogue.

However, my primary concern is dealing with the bigger issue of pensions. That is the reason I started my comments by talking about the idea of independence and how pensions are best set. From a personal perspective, I do not know if I would qualify for a member of Parliament pension. I believe it is six years, but I am not a hundred per cent sure of that.

With regard to members of Parliament or members of legislative assemblies throughout out country, I suspect that the primary reason they become engaged in politics is not necessarily to receive a pension. I like to believe that individuals who take an interest in politics, first and foremost get involved because they want to serve. I think that is of critical importance.

Individuals approach me, especially nowadays, and at least every other week I talk to someone who could be interested in becoming engaged in politics. Being able to share with them about the compensation and so forth is important. There is no doubt about that. However, their real interest is in being able to serve the community in which they live, whether it is a smaller neighbourhood or the broader country. That is admirable.

The bottom line is that we have to respect that and to recognize there is a need for some form of compensation. As to what kind of compensation and to what degree, I would like to see that brought into the realm of independence in terms of how that compensation would be determined.

With regard to the bill specifically, I look forward to hearing more debate.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

NDP

François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be speaking to Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

The bill would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament that is punishable by a minimum of two years in prison. These types of sentences of two years or more mostly involve federal offences covered by the Criminal Code.

Once the bill is passed, MPs or senators who have been found guilty of such an offence would be reimbursed their pension contributions plus interest, which is consistent with other applicable legislation.

The NDP supports this bill because we belive that any bill that strengthens parliamentary ethics is a step in the right direction. However, it is clear that this bill is really just a Conservative charade to make us believe that they are not responsible for the Senate scandal and that they champion ethics.

In reality, the Prime Minister—a man who appointed people like Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to taxpayer-funded positions—is using this bill to try to make us believe that he has at least a vestige of ethics. Canadians know better and they will not forget this government's schemes.

Liberal Party senators, those who are part of the non-Liberal caucus or rather independent Liberal senators with no caucus or something of that sort, should not get too excited yet. Canadians have not forgotten that they had no issues with Mac Harb even after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, nor have they forgotten that the Liberals paid their deficit by drawing on workers' employment insurance contributions. Above all, nobody, particularly nobody in Quebec, has forgotten the sponsorship scandal. Quebeckers are fed up, and in case anyone is wondering, it is not because the Montreal Canadiens are winning the Stanley Cup. It is because Quebeckers believe in their motto “Je me souviens” or “I remember”.

In short, although the bill is a step in the right direction, it is just a front and does not address the serious ethical problems caused by both the Conservative and Liberal parties. No legislation can do that. The problem is these parties' culture of entitlement. They think that they deserve to be in power no matter what they do and that they eventually will be again one day. They think they are entitled to their entitlements. That is an unhealthy way of thinking. The NDP is now giving Canadians a healthy option that works for them. The NDP knows that it is a privilege to represent Canadians, not a given right. The NDP works for Canadians, not for the lobbies.

I am also proud to mention that the bill is basically copied from a bill introduced by the NDP government of Nova Scotia that received royal assent on May 10, 2013.

I am pleased that the members opposite are finally using one of our ideas to draft ethics-related legislation. Perhaps they are starting to see the light, unless they are merely acting like a co-worker who steals other people's lunches and then puts a note on the fridge the next day warning people to stop stealing others' lunches. Given the government's history, I tend to think the latter is true.

Let us now come back to the subject at hand. Clearly, the purpose of the bill is to show that the Conservative Party is angry about the ethical lapses of its senators, who were all personally appointed by the Prime Minister.

The same is true for the Liberals, who magically made their senators disappear overnight and who will surely make them reappear when they need them.

In fact, the party of the Mac Harbs and Raymond Lavignes still plays political games, assuming that Canadians are naive, when they are not. Canadians see through their games and, with each passing day, more and more Canadians come to trust the NDP. The only solution to the ethical problems of parliamentarians is to elect an NDP government and to abolish the Senate.

Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, formerly run by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, believes that the lack of ethics in the House comes from the blue and the red parties. Let me quote what Director Gregory Thomas said:

Canadians have just witnessed the spectacle of convicted fraudster, former Liberal Senator and MP Raymond Lavigne, collecting his $67,000 annual pension while sitting in jail for filing false Senate expense claims. We now have a former Liberal MP and Senator and a former Conservative Senator each facing criminal charges relating to their official duties, with more Senators under criminal investigation. Clearly, Senators and MPs need tougher anti-corruption penalties to combat the temptations politicians face.

This quote, which could not be clearer, perfectly summarizes the constant and systemic ethical breaches of successive Liberal and Conservative governments for the past 20 years, from the sponsorship scandal to the current Senate scandal.

This bill is a step in the right direction. That is why we in the NDP will support the bill at second reading. However, we cannot legislate the culture or the ethics of a party. That is the problem with this government and the third party.

That is why we must send a message that Canadians need a government that respects them and that will work in their best interests rather than its own interests. In 2015, that is the government Canadians will have by voting for the NDP.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Resuming debate with his five-minute right of reply, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make in concluding this second hour of debate.

I appreciate some of the comments I heard from the other side, I believe referring to the bill as virtuous, which I suppose is good news, but at the same time questioning some of the motivations behind it. I am not going to respond to those. I am just happy to have support for this bill.

There are some amendments to this bill that I believe are necessary, which I referenced in the first hour of debate. As one hon. member noted, in the original draft of the bill I did suggest in drafting it that the penalties be invoked for any crime where the maximum penalty is two or more years. Upon reflection and consultation, as I stated some weeks ago, I felt that the threshold should be increased to five-year indictable crimes, elevating it to charges that would include, for example, breach of trust, theft, serious charges, because the consequences are serious for members of Parliament.

As well, this bill as drafted is very much in line with the law that exists currently in Nova Scotia. My bill was tabled on June 3, 2013, and would apply to any convictions after that date if it is passed here and in the other place, and ultimately receives royal assent. However, should it be successful and move on to committee, here is really the test that committee members should consider when weighing the merits of this bill. It is what I call the Lavigne test case. Senator Lavigne was convicted of fraud and breach of trust, yet he resigned from his position as a senator before he could be ejected, thereby keeping his parliamentary pension.

He was convicted of these crimes, which, as I said, have a threshold. The maximum is five or more years. However, he was only sentenced to six months. That really is the type of scoundrel we are trying to capture with this legislation: individuals who are convicted of serious crimes. It should not matter the amount of time spent in prison, but rather the crimes that people are convicted of in a court of law. That is the request I put to the committee for consideration as they look at possible amendments to this bill, beyond the ones I am suggesting. How would it work in practice with respect to an individual who has already gone through it? How do we ensure, going forward, that we do not see that kind of abuse again? I remember when Senator Lavigne was able to resign and keep his pension.

On that note, I will highlight what the law currently states. Currently, on the books for both the House of Commons and the other place, the Senate, if a member is convicted of a serious crime, he or she is to be evicted, and when that happens, that member loses his or her pension. The loophole, the out, is that he or she can resign before being ejected and in doing so can hold onto his or her pension. I believe we should close that loophole. If a member of either House is found to be guilty, their pension should be revoked automatically and that loophole should not exist.

I look forward to the committee's review and recommendations if we are successful going forward, as well as further consultation on this bill.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, February, 24, 2014, the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 8 under government business. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 8, Mr. Barry Devolin in the chair)

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Ajax—Pickering Ontario

Conservative

Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

moved:

That this Committee take note of the evolving situation in Ukraine.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Chair Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how the proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Members may divide their time with another member.

The debate will end after four hours or when no member rises to speak. Pursuant to an order adopted Monday, February 24, 2014, the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

We will now begin tonight's take note debate accordingly.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, many of us in the House and across Canada have been thinking about Ukraine in recent days and weeks as violence, unfortunately, has swept across the Maidan, Kiev's Independence Square, and across other parts of the country, taking the lives of too many innocent people.

I would like to start by recapping the role the Canadian government has tried to play in this crisis from the outset. It is one of leadership and based on a principled stand in favour of the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, including freedom for the Ukrainian people; a return to democracy; obviously full protection of human rights, which were being trampled all too often in recent days and weeks; and further commitment to develop the rule of law in that country, which is still emerging from the Soviet legacy that distorted its institutions so badly, and which so richly deserves a brighter future based on a market economy, on integration with Europe, and in line with the aspirations of the people.

This crisis has been some time in coming. Back in November there was very forceful diplomacy under way to bring about an historic agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. It was an association agreement. It seemed to have wide, popular support in Ukraine. It certainly had been devised based on long and deep consultations throughout the member states of the European Union.

Then suddenly on November 21, that prospect was gone. There were immediate protests and then through the month of December. Violence started in January. Canada was alongside the Ukrainian people every step of the way, with many in the House, and certainly our leadership on the government side, making public statements regularly. I do not know how many statements were made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it was certainly a large number, urging that the association agreement be embraced by the government. When that did not happen, we urged restraint and that no further steps be taken back from what we and the Ukrainians take to be their economic destiny. Then when the violence began, we focused on using our voice and joining it with those of like-minded partners and allies around the world to make sure that the violence stopped.

The violence did not stop. By late January, we found ourselves in the position of having to take an unprecedented step regarding Ukraine, putting in place a travel ban on those members of the Yanukovych regime who had been responsible at that time for limited but very serious violence. The deaths then numbered around a dozen.

Then we came to the month of February and the violence got worse. Dozens of people, close to 100, well over 80, were confirmed to have been killed. This threat was during the spectacle of the Sochi Olympics, which had certain Soviet aspects and certainly a salute to Soviet history, a somewhat airbrushed Soviet history, in the opening ceremonies. The Sochi Olympics held the splendour, the grandeur, the triumph of our athletes, whom we are all very proud of.

Only a few hundred miles away, this tragedy was unfolding in the streets of Kiev. We were caught in that paradox, obviously deeply concerned by the fact that those courageous protestors who had chosen to put their lives on the line in the centre of Kiev might face brute force from their own government on a very large scale, including from the army.

Last week we took the difficult but necessary decision to announce that sanctions would be imposed on those members of the regime who were perpetrating the violence, bringing this unnecessary suffering onto the Ukrainian people, literally holding their dreams and aspirations hostage.

However, as members know, events have moved extremely quickly. The day, or two days after, those sanctions were announced suddenly the opposition was in control of Kiev; suddenly the Verkhovna Rada had taken a decision to impeach the president; suddenly the president was on the run. Suddenly there was a new acting president, an acting prime minister, and now there is a list of new ministers that is to be confirmed by democratic process by the democratically elected representatives of Ukraine. As well, a number of other demands of the opposition were met in fairly short order.

Just to be clear, the sanctions we announced remain a tool that is available to Canada. The legislation that we need to undertake sanctions is there. The decisions by the Governor in Council that would be necessary to enact the sanctions are available and could be enacted very soon. However, we have not imposed the sanctions because the Yanukovych regime, thankfully, is no more, and we hope that all of those people responsible for the violence will no longer feature in the regime and we will not have to take these steps to punish the regime in this way.

We are watching the situation closely. We are consulting with our allies, and as members know, Canada will continue to stand on principle in all matters relating to Ukraine. Several of our colleagues are en route tonight, led by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, who will be welcomed very warmly by the opposition, some of whom are forming a new government, and by the Ukrainian people who heard the voice of Canada standing with them through these weeks of violence and uncertainty.

What is the larger issue that is facing us in Ukraine? This is one of the great countries of Europe, with 44 million people, the second-largest country in Europe to emerge from the former Soviet Union. Canada was the first country to recognize its independence in 1991. Our relationship is that close. Canada, not Poland, was the first country, and I was there and can prove it. The relationship between our countries is so deep that we have followed Ukraine's development every step of the way. We have sent observers to elections. We have trained public servants. We have been involved in Ukraine's form of justice institutions. However, what has really been happening over those 23-odd years since 1991?

It is like a pendulum swinging in the lives of Ukrainians. There was a period of great enthusiasm and great democratic excitement in the early 1990s, followed by a period, not dictatorial in its purest sense, but of dictatorial behaviour, under a regime that was increasingly autocratic. It relied on the influence of oligarchs, shady individuals, often in Russia and Ukraine, with significant means. They were not accountable to the people and had no respect for the rule of law, but they were running the country.

Then, in 2004, the orange revolution set this autocratic system aside for a while, before president Yanukovych took power and began the process all over again. He strengthened his power and settled into an increasingly repressive system.

The real choice for Ukraine is this: Does it want to be Poland? Can it be? Will it be given the opportunity to be a Poland, a country moving forward in Europe, a country benefiting from free enterprise, from investment from around the world, and from the talent of its citizens? Or does it want to be Belarus, a country that is very much under the influence of another part of Europe, a country whose standard of living has declined, not risen, and a country whose opportunities are few and the future not bright because of the autocracy that continues to prevail there?

We are very clear about what side we are on. The Ukrainian people have been clear this weekend about which side they are on. I hope that all members of the House in tonight's debate will do everything in their power to show that Canada is united in supporting freedom and progress for the Ukrainian people.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. However, I must admit that I was a bit surprised to hear him say that Canada has not imposed sanctions because the Yanukovych regime is no more.

The regime is no more, but one of the sanctions we suggested and pushed very hard for was to freeze his assets. They have not been frozen. President Yanukovych and his regime—let us call it what it is—still have access to these assets. The majority of these assets most likely belong to the people of Ukraine and they should one day be returned to these people so that they can rebuild their country. These leaders could also use these assets to flee the country.

Why have we not frozen their assets?

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Chair, we are obviously still very concerned about the role of Yanukovych, his allies, his inner circle, about his fate, his future and what is next for him. However, we must recognize that he is no longer president. He was removed by his own parliament. He is no longer in power and is now facing very serious charges from Ukraine itself and from a new Ukrainian regime. It is up to that regime to freeze his assets and to ensure that he is held accountable for his actions.

Of course, Canada is prepared to do everything it can. We will continue to consult our allies and partners about sanctions, but Yanukovych's assets are primarily in Ukraine. Ukraine has to ensure that Yanukovych is held accountable.

UkraineGovernment Orders

February 26th, 2014 / 7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Chair, there is a lot of work we have been doing in Ukraine. Every party has been very supportive of the work we have been doing.

The political bully, Yanukovych, has to be tamed down. There are other political bullies in this world, such as in Sri Lanka.

I do not mean to take away from the debate tonight, the interest that is there, and the work we still have to do. I know that the government is sending its members over to Ukraine. It is a real shame that the other parties were not invited to go along.

However, my question to the minister is about another part of the world. My question is about Venezuela. In Venezuela, something is happening that is just as bad as what is happening in Ukraine.

Would we take the appropriate steps, as we did and as we pushed for in Ukraine? The Canadian Ukrainians and Ukrainians around the world are grateful. Would we do the same thing in Venezuela? Will we bar officials of the Maduro regime from coming to Canada, and will the minister try to impose sanctions as well as travel bans on the people who are doing this in Caracas, Venezuela, right now?

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Chair, with regard to Venezuela, we remain concerned by the situation. We called for the violence to end. We want the government there also to hold itself to account and to be held to account so there is no further loss of life. We have called for a renewal of dialogue between the government and the opposition.

However, tonight's debate is about Ukraine. We have to remind ourselves that, despite the events that took place over the weekend, most of them heartening, most of them positive from Canada's perspective and that of the Ukrainians, the hard work of building a new, more credible regime, a government more credible in the eyes of the Ukrainian people, is only just beginning. There are challenges. All of us who have worked in eastern Europe and transitional countries know it is extremely difficult, especially in the wake of a regime that was so corrupt and so brutal with its own people.

One challenge is simply delivering honest government, delivering service to people at every level that does not involve a bribe. Also there is the challenge of avoiding the further loss of economic momentum. There has been loss of economic momentum as the protests and chaos grew in Kiev. Thirdly, there is also the whole issue of the rule of law and justice institutions, which are issues in every post-Soviet state but especially in countries like Ukraine where unaccountable oligarchs, true autocrats, and other forms of abuse have been all too present.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB

Mr. Chair, I would like to know from my colleague, as part of the democratic evolution to bring about stability, whether it necessarily involves linguistic resolve, linguistic stability, and linguistic inclusiveness between the Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians? I wonder if he would comment on that and say to the people listening whether that is going to be included in the overall Canadian approach of trying to bring about stability and democratic resolve?

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Chair, that is an interesting question for us as a bilingual country in a bilingual chamber.

I was corrected on this issue earlier today by the ambassador of Ukraine. I had thought that Ukraine had become an officially bilingual country. That is actually not the case. It continues to have, as it did under the Yanukovych regime and before the Yanukovych regime, only one official language. That is Ukrainian.

Under Yanukovych, in certain regions, more service was delivered in Russian. There were minority language rights to a certain extent at the regional level. Apparently the new post-Yanukovych parliament has disavowed that law. That is not going to stop. As the member well knows, a large number of Ukrainians speak Russian as their principal language. It is very important, as we know, that accommodation take place. There are other linguistic minorities in Ukraine, many of whom have not enjoyed the kinds of services they would like to see. This is something that the international community will be watching, but for now, Ukrainian remains the one official language of the country. Of course, it will be a Ukrainian decision to maintain that or alter it down the road. It is something that every democratic people must decide for themselves.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Chair, we have roughly 1.2 million people of Ukrainian heritage from coast to coast to coast. There is very much a caring heart here in Canada for what is happening in Ukraine. It goes beyond just those of Ukrainian heritage; all Canadians want the best for the future of Ukraine. They want the people of Ukraine to get what they want. We have recognized this. We had the take note debate back on December 10. We had an emergency debate on January 27. We have, yet again, another take note debate.

Canada cares about what is happening in Ukraine. I ask the minister to provide assurances from his perspective and that of the Government of Canada that as much as possible, in an apolitical fashion, they recognize there are people all over, from all different political spectrums, who want to participate in supporting Ukraine. Perhaps he could comment on that.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Chair, yes, of course, we understand on this side of the House how strong this sense is across Canada and in all parties in the House that we, Canada, must do everything in our power to support Ukraine and a return to democracy. That is exactly what we are aiming to do through Minister Baird's trip. He was on the Maidan at a critical time. He is going back to see a changed landscape and a more hopeful one.

We know that the way forward will involve hard work and hard choices for Ukrainians, choices about leadership and choices about how to implement accountability. We also know that it is going to involve work by all of us, with our friends and partners around the world. There is going to have to be support for Ukraine on some scale. We are already talking about it. There is going to have to be an effort to counter corruption on the grand scale that it was taking place.

There is going to have to be a path into Europe, probably going beyond an association agreement eventually, to a more substantial partnership with Europe. That is what Ukrainians want.

Of course, we all want to see Ukraine's unity, sovereignty, and independence respected. Any country, neighbouring or otherwise, that calls into question those sacred principles will have to face the Ukrainian people and all their friends and allies around the world who insist that this unity, independence, and sovereignty be respected.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Chair Conservative Barry Devolin

Before we resume debate, I want to remind all hon. members that they ought not to be referring to their colleagues, including ministers, by their given names but simply by their offices or constituencies.

Second, I would ask that members refer to the Chair for a signal that it is time to wrap up either their questions or answers. It is more difficult to command the room from this seat than from the Speaker's chair, but I would ask for the co-operation of all hon. members.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

UkraineGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Chair, we are obviously all very concerned about the situation in Ukraine. That is why I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the House tonight as part of this take note debate.

I want to point out that we requested an emergency debate on Monday. Although our request was denied, at least we are able to talk about this very important issue this evening.

We were all relieved to see that violence has de-escalated over the past few days. We were also very relieved to learn, just a few hours ago, that a government of national unity is being formed in Ukraine. This is a good sign and a step in the right direction. It is desperately needed. Let us make no mistake. Just because President Yanukovych is gone and there is this new government of national unity does not mean that the situation has been resolved. There is still a lot to be done.

One urgent problem that exists right now is Ukraine's economic situation. This country needs billions of dollars. I think that Canada should work with its IMF partners to ensure that the major emergencies can at least be dealt with.

There are still stability and security issues. The country will not become stable and secure again unless all the actors in Ukrainian society work together, which appears to be happening.

I would like to comment further on the idea of working together. The government announced that a Canadian delegation is going to Kiev. I think that is good because it is something we asked for. I am glad the government is doing that. However, it is too bad that the delegation includes only Conservative members of Parliament and that opposition MPs were not invited. They are going to Ukraine to deliver a message of national unity, but they cannot even set an example by inviting parliamentarians from both sides of the House to address an issue that people have differing opinions about, even though we agree on the heart of the matter.

There are still many challenges ahead, including the challenge of getting all regions of the country to work together. People from all over seem to be coming together, although the situation in Crimea is something of an unknown. We have been following that situation closely. Also unknown is how neighbouring Russia will react, but we have to hope that things will settle down in the coming hours and days.

May is not far off, and there is an election to organize. A well-run election is critical to progress in Ukraine. Canada must send election observers.

Even that will not be the end of the story. Not everything will have been said and done. After that, the country needs to be rebuilt. At that stage, Canada needs to be more present than ever. Institutions must be strengthened, and that includes law enforcement and public services. Corruption must be battled. Democratic development must take place; that is critical. Economic development must be pursued. Earlier I said that the very difficult economic situation is one of the toughest issues Ukraine is dealing with right now.

I would like to digress again here. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development this afternoon, we heard from several people, including some groups of Ukrainian Canadians. I was astounded to learn that people are still waiting for a call for tenders for a project discussed with CIDA to promote small business in Ukraine.

Small businesses are essential to the economy, but they also help combat corruption because they are less of a target for the large corruption networks. However, people have been waiting for the call for tenders to be issued for over a year. Beyond the more general situation, I am therefore taking the opportunity to encourage the government to ensure that this call for tenders is finally issued.

Going back to Ukraine's major challenges, there is the matter of tax evasion. We heard that people had evaded tax on over $40 billion. Therefore, the tax system needs to be reformed. Canada has experience in that area and should therefore be present until Ukraine can address these basic problems.

It will also be important to look at justice and reconciliation. However, reconciliation often requires that justice be done. I think that Canada should support the Ukrainian parliament's request that the International Criminal Court launch an investigation into the crimes committed by the former regime.

I know that the Ukrainians are going to put their shoulders to the wheel and roll up their sleeves to rebuild. Canada must support them. To do that, we can freeze the assets of Ukrainian leaders. Unless no Ukrainian leader has any assets in Canada—and that may change in any event—we should proceed with freezing their assets. I do not understand why the government is refusing to do so.

We are talking about billions of dollars that have been stolen from the Ukrainian people, money that is just sitting in banks all around the world. That money should be returned to its rightful owners, the Ukrainian people. We should be freezing that money so that no one else can use it in the meantime to escape to a new part of the world, for example.

Our Ukrainian brothers and sisters have the right to a stable, democratic and prosperous country. Canada should be by their side and accompany them in their efforts. Let's work with them in order to help them realize their hopes.