Debates of Feb. 26th, 2014

Ukraine

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, as many members are aware, over the weekend we had a convention, with more than 3,000 people from across Canada, where an emergency resolution was introduced. There was support for and discussion about Ukraine. One could sense that people wanted to see change happen and wanted the Canadian government to take action.

I just want to make three quick references to what that delegation passed. The first was that Canada call for an observer mission of at least 500 Canadians, led by a preeminent Canadian, to help oversee the election. Second was that the international community take all necessary steps to ensure that any and all human rights violations in Ukraine are properly investigated, and, as appropriate, prosecuted. Third was that the Government of Canada call upon the IMF to urgently meet with the new Ukrainian leadership to provide economic support and to develop a new plan.

Does the member recognize that there is a great need for us to take specific action? Hopefully, we will get some ideas here this evening. Would she not agree?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I totally agree on these three points: the need for election observers, the need to investigate the crimes and human rights abuses that occurred in Ukraine, and the need for the IMF to get involved. In fact, we know that the IMF has been in discussion with officials for the past few days since the government still has not been installed. The process is under way. I agree with the three points mentioned, and I had the opportunity to mention others in my speech. For example, we must think about reconstruction, about immediately freezing the assets, and about supporting Parliament's request for the International Criminal Court to look into this. There is a wide range of measures that could be taken.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite said she believes that we all want to lead by example. I am going to challenge her a bit on this because I would like her to explain something for me. When the minister went to Kiev between December 3 to 5, he was in the square and met with protestors. At that time, the member for Ottawa Centre, her party's critic on these issues said, in criticizing our minister, that “...joining the protest signals that you're…on one side”.

I am interested tonight to know when the New Democrats decided that they needed to join one side, because clearly they seem to be on the same side that we are on now. The member for Ottawa Centre also wanted to know why the minister was even out there speaking to those brave Ukrainian demonstrators.

I wonder if the member could go through the thought processes that the New Democrats went through, from standing squarely on the fence on December 5 to where they have joined with us, and claim to be joining with us, in defending the rights of Ukrainian citizens.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have always been very clear during our statements and during debate in the House. We have pushed for renewed peace, dialogue, respect for human rights and so on. That has always been our position. I have always enjoyed working with the hon. member, but I do not understand his vision, his change in position.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for her very heartfelt and solid speech. She has a lot of foreign affairs experience, and we can respect her opinion in this place.

It is one thing for our government to stand in a square and speak to the protestors, but it is another thing for the government to step up and commit the scale of resources that is going to be needed to help Ukraine get on its feet, to provide rule of law and a democratic government system.

I know the member has had many experiences working in other foreign countries. I had the privilege of working in Mexico, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, and there were major Canadian infusions of dollars to the order of, in some cases, $80 billion to support the development of good governance. Around the world, donors are now getting together.

Does the member think it would be leadership that Canada could provide, by going over to Ukraine with a delegation of Foreign Affairs and CIDA officials and leading a gathering of the donor nations in how they can work together to provide the solid additional support that Ukraine is definitely going to need?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I completely agree with that approach. It is always important to work with our partners. Right now, we need to work with the European Union, the United States and the International Monetary Fund to address the urgent situation in Ukraine.

As I said in my speech, we also need to consider the long-term. In addition, we should consider Canada's capacity to promote democracy and respect for human rights, as my colleague rightfully pointed out. We have lost vital institutions on that front. For example, the government abolished Rights and Democracy. However, Canada still has the expertise and we need to invest in it. It is essential that we work with all of our partners in order to co-ordinate our actions and get results.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to start by talking a little about what has happened in Ukraine and how we should understand the incredibly turbulent, incredibly tragic, and incredibly helpful events that have taken place over the past three months.

The most important thing in thinking about Ukraine today is to appreciate that the conflict we have seen has been a very clear political and even moral fight. This has been a fight about what kind of a regime the people of Ukraine want to live in and be a part of. Did they want to live in a democracy that respects the rule of law, the rights of individuals and individual freedoms, or did they want to live under an authoritarian regime?

This conflict began over a simple trade and association agreement. However, it was about this bigger issue. This is important to underscore because sometimes in the account of what is going on, particularly outside of Ukraine, the struggle is framed as a battle over nationalism; it is framed as a battle about religion, language, or culture.

Ukraine certainly has disputes over some of those issues, but it was not the central theme and not what was centrally at stake in this conflict. The Maidan spoke in Ukrainian and the Maidan also spoke in Russian, which is a central point to emphasize.

Part of the reason I underscore this is that we are hearing, and we will continue to hear, a very strong point of view expressed by some Russians, but not all. Many Russians would also like to live in a more democratic regime and have followed the events in the Maidan with great sympathy. However, what we have been hearing, and will continue to hear from some of the Russian authorities, is an effort to frame this conflict as a nationalistic clash; as a civil war scenario.

We are already hearing this. I follow the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter, and we have already seen it starting to label the people of Ukraine as terrorists and as Nazis. Let us be very careful not to give way to that sort of propaganda.

I know that the people in this House and the people in Canada who are listening to us are interested in this issue. Therefore, I am going to offer a footnote to my comments and suggest that people who are interested in this particular aspect of the conflict in Ukraine read a brilliant piece by Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale, which was published recently in the The New York Review of Books. It addresses precisely this subject. We are going to be hearing a lot of backlash that says something different about Ukraine and it is very important to be well informed.

We have watched the events in Ukraine closely with fear and anguish for the lives that were lost. What does Ukraine need now?

Everyone who wants democracy to flourish in Ukraine, and I am certain that is everyone in this House, needs to focus now on three things: we need to support and help with new elections; we need to support Ukraine economically; and we need to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, particularly in relation to some of the claims we are already hearing and may be hearing from Russia.

On the election point, a new election date has been set, which is in May. It is important that we focus on it, that Canada be present and that a high-level Canadian delegation be there in advance. This is going to be the moment when we see a new, fully legitimate government of Ukraine be formed. This is a crucial point. Let us keep our eyes on that prize. International observers are truly essential to give that legitimacy and, to be sure, not only to put our good housekeeping seal of approval on the process, but also that it is in fact genuinely fair and open.

The second issue, which we have already spoken about today, and which I cannot emphasize the importance of too strongly, is that Ukraine now has succeeded in overthrowing an authoritarian regime; a regime whose bloody intentions became ever more evident as this conflict escalated.

What Ukraine does not have yet is a functioning, effective new government, and the real difficulty for this government is that Ukraine was not in great economic shape when this crisis began. The crisis itself has deepened Ukraine's economic difficulties. If we care about the Maidan, if we believe in those values—and surely we all do—we really need to support the democratic authorities of Ukraine now. It needs to be a multilateral, multi-partisan effort. We need to have the IMF and the EU there, and Canada needs to be a part of it.

I cannot emphasize this too much. Ukraine has already had, in our lifetime, over the past just over 20 years, two democratic revolutions. This is the third one. Ukraine became an independent state in 1991. Ukraine then, in its Orange Revolution, overthrew a government that was leaning into authoritarianism in 2004–05.

Let us support Ukraine now so that 10 years from now we are not debating in the House what to do about yet another Ukrainian revolution. Because if that happens, the Ukrainian people who have shown thus far an incredible commitment to democracy, an incredible belief in it, an incredible unwillingness to give way to cynicism, they are going to have enough. They are going to get fed up too. This is a really important moment and it is important not to give way to democracy fatigue, to mission-building fatigue. The really hard part starts now.

One of our hon. members, whom I hope we will be hearing from later tonight, has tremendous experience with Poland and with Poland's own revolutions. The real lesson of Poland is that a powerful civil society is essential for overthrowing an authoritarian regime, but the second lesson is that institutional support from the outside can be the difference between success or failure of those new democratic authorities. The relationship between the EU and the way in which that desire to be part of Europe and the support Europe offered for the building of democratic Poland cannot be overstated. We have to give Ukraine similar support, a similar goal.

The third thing that Ukraine needs now, which is really essential, is we have to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The events in Ukraine were not what the Kremlin wanted or anticipated. I really believe, based on statements that we are hearing from the Kremlin, this was a complete surprise. It is very hard for Russia's current authorities to even imagine the Ukrainians as a separate people. We have heard from Vladimir Putin that he considers Ukrainians and Russians to be one people, and Vladimir Putin does not understand that Ukrainians would want to live under a different regime.

We have to make clear to the Russians that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is something that the international community stands behind, and that the Ukrainian people have made their decision in blood and we need to support it. That is essential for Ukrainian democracy and it is essential for geopolitical stability in that entire region.

In closing, I want to make a plea to my colleagues across the aisle. I believe that we have consensus in the House on Ukraine. We have consensus not only because a lot of us are Ukrainian Canadians or have Ukrainian Canadians in our ridings—the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has many of my Ukrainian Canadian family members in her riding—but also because we all believe in democracy. It is such a core Canadian value.

Let us fight here about the political issues where we generally disagree. Let us fight about income splitting. Let us disagree about Keystone, but let us not make Ukraine a political football. Her people have died for this revolution; let us not diminish their sacrifice. I do not think anyone in the House wants to do that. If we can say to the people of Ukraine that we are united in supporting them, what a strong message that would send to them.

It says to them that it is not about party politics in Canada. The whole country supports them. We can set a fine example for the people of Ukraine. Sure, we disagree about things, but there are also some values that we share, and we are willing to set those disagreements aside to support them.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, the member wants to speak to us of lessons. I guess she is trying to convince us that she and her party are really serious about this issue. It must have hurt her deeply, as she claims Ukrainian-Canadian heritage, to have heard the comments of her leader last weekend.

She wants us to join together and speak and work together in consensus—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

That is pretty cheap. You know what, that is pretty cheap. You are cheap.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I do not know if the member opposite wants to speak.

She wants to work together with consensus while they are heckling us, of course. I just want to ask her if she can assure us that her leader understands now that this is not a joking matter. Can she assure us that he understands that it is, in fact, a matter of life and death for the Ukrainian people?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I am really disappointed that this is the response from the hon. member about remarks that were meant to address not our own partisan squabbles but the very real issue of democracy and the future of Ukraine. This is a really big issue. This is an issue that has historic significance. Passing remarks on TV shows are not going to have historic significance.

I want to quickly respond to the in-passing slight about my “claimed” Ukrainian-Canadian heritage. This is not a debate about me, so I am not going to go into it, but I would like to assure the hon. member and everyone in the House that my own personal commitment to Ukraine is lifelong, sincere, and deep, as is my commitment to the Liberal Party.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for Toronto Centre for her heartfelt comments. Of course, I am proud to have her family in my constituency.

As the member is well aware, a good portion of Ukrainian Canadians live in my city. I was proud to spend Sunday evening with them, viewing the incredible posters from the Maidan that were produced in December at the beginning of the issue. Immediately before that, there was a memorial service in the square in Edmonton. It was very heartfelt.

As well, I can attest to the fact that the hon. member's mother helped to write the constitution of Ukraine, which is now being restored.

It is absolutely incumbent on the House to show examples of how co-operation can proceed toward a good end. The sitting government of Ukraine is now a combination of all of those opposition parties, which shows how they can come together, even though they have a diversity of views, to reform the way that they operate under the government and move forward together.

I wonder if the member would support the invitation I would extend to the government side, which is that a nice gesture would have been to include a delegation of all the parties in the House to show that we share a common support for the people of Ukraine that continues and that is very strong.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her remarks. I am really grateful to her for mentioning my late mother, who did indeed devote a big portion of her life to helping to write the democratic constitution of Ukraine.

I do agree that it is a strong message that Canada could send. I would like to emphasize that I have tremendous respect for many of the members of the House in other parties, and particularly for those of Polish descent who have great and hard-won experience of what it means to fight for democracy and who have been great friends of Ukraine.

A great conclusion to our own debate this evening would be to set an example for the people of Ukraine. We are asking them to come together after literally killing each other. Surely having just heckled one another and fired a few cheap verbal shots, we could say democracy and the future of Ukraine are more important than that.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to mention something to the member for Toronto Centre, but before that, I would like to reply to another comment that was made about the posters that were in Edmonton from the Maidan. I am sorry I missed that, but I got to see the posters first-hand in December in Euromaidan when I was there. I felt it was very important to be there.

What I found when I was there, which was encouraging, was that the protesters and demonstrators were not just Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians but Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Tatars were there as well.

I felt comfortable that yes, this is a terrible time they are going through, but maybe it bodes well for the future and maybe we have a chance in the politics of the future, because in the past there has been a linguistic divide and an east-west divide. I feel there is the possibility of doing that.

When we are working on democratic evolution and improvement, I would like the member to comment on whether she would have some suggestions or ideas on how we can incorporate into that not just working with the political parties but working on linguistic inclusiveness from across Ukraine. As we can see today, there is too much of a divide there, and we must somehow do this. We must visit not just the western part of Ukraine on a regular basis but also the eastern part, the Crimea part, so that somehow we can encourage the constitution to be more inclusive. What would the member suggest we could do toward that end?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Edmonton East makes an excellent point about Ukraine, and as someone who went to high school in Edmonton, I think it is delightful that the Edmonton caucus, if there is such a thing, speaks about Ukraine with such good information and such insight and warmth.

I very strongly agree with the hon. member for Edmonton East. The Maidan really was a multilingual place. It was a place where Russian was spoken proudly as part of the conversation.

Something that I learned living in Ukraine was the extent to which Ukraine is truly a bilingual culture and society. There is almost no one in Ukraine who does not understand both Russian and Ukrainian perfectly, and most Ukrainians speak both languages. It is helpful that those languages are not too far away from one another. If one begins, as I did, as a reporter arriving in Ukraine speaking only Ukrainian, learning Russian is not as hard, and if one begins as a speaker only of Russian, learning Ukrainian is not as hard. The Ukrainians start from a strong base.

I strongly agree with the hon. member for Edmonton East that something we need to do as an outside friend of Ukraine is to urge Ukrainians today, the Maidan having won, to double down on the democracy part of the message and be as inclusive as possible. That is absolutely essential.

I absolutely agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton East, which I think was also a suggestion by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that one thing Canada may be able to share with Ukraine is its experience living as a bilingual country and multicultural society, particularly given that Ukrainians trust us, given our strong Ukrainian-Canadian community and given our record as a country of supporting Ukraine. They trust us to have Ukraine's best interests at heart, and sharing our experience of bilingualism and multiculturalism is something Canada could uniquely do to help. Let us show them Canadian unity and help them with that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I am very thankful for the comments from the member for Toronto Centre. In the last part of her speech when she was concluding, she might have said something in Ukrainian. I was hoping she could give the actual conclusion of her opening comments.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is from Winnipeg, another city that has lots of great Ukrainian Canadians.

The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is “Shche ne vmerla Ukrayina”. That means Ukraine has not yet died. To me, that says a lot about the extent to which Ukraine as a nation and Ukrainians as a people have lived on the edge of survival.

We now have an opportunity—Ukrainians themselves have fought and died for it, and the rest of the world can help them—to get them to a place where, from now on, that anthem will be about their history, not about their present. Let us work—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I have a reminder for hon. members. I appreciate that in the less formal nature of a take note debate, members do wish to exchange debate across the floor to one another, which is entirely appropriate for this kind of debate. I would just ask hon. members to glance at the Chair from time to time so that I can give a signal as to how their time is going. I will try to keep an eye on that and give members as much opportunity as I can to finish the statement they are in.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, one of the things I want to point out tonight is the tremendous commitment that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have shown to this issue right from the beginning of the crisis.

We can go back to November 21, when we first heard from Ukraine and from its leader that they were going to sever their ties and the agreement they were supposed to have signed with the EU and then move towards an association with Russia.

It was only about three days later, on November 24, when hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Kiev. A couple of days later, when it looked as though the protests were beginning to wind down a little bit, the Ukrainian police attacked the protesters and really set this off.

I see my colleague getting a little excited here, so I would like to point out that I am going to share my time with my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

In early December, our minister went to Kiev. As I mentioned earlier, the opposition was confused as to why he would be there. He went out and spent some time with the demonstrators and expressed our support for their position.

From there it took off. We had a debate here in the House on December 10. The real troubles escalated throughout December and January. On January 22, a couple of protestors were shot and lost their lives while working toward freedom. The ceasefire that was put in place temporarily was broken by January 25. The violence escalated from there.

This government moved early. On January 28, we put travel bans in place on their key government leaders. Around the middle of February, on February 18, there was more extreme violence. On that date, we decided we were going to provide assistance directly to Ukraine and to the protestors there. We made a commitment to provide medical assistance and help to them.

On February 20, we moved to extend that ban. We then began to work toward putting sanctions in place. I think every one of us was very happy to see, on February 21, that we really did not have to do that, because Yanukovych left his position. We believe Ukraine will judge him and will judge his supporters. We see clearly that the judicial system in Ukraine is already looking for him. They have an arrest warrant out for him.

The travel ban had been instituted and then extended, and I think there has been some confusion about sanctions. I heard some news reports. I just want to talk a bit about that.

The same measures on travel bans and sanctions that were announced by the Prime Minister, that we were working on last week, are calibrated and will be calibrated to respond to the developments that take place in Ukraine. The reality is that travel bans remain in effect for those individuals who were covered by them previously, and we will continue to watch that situation.

We had some discussion today at the foreign affairs committee about these bans and what they meant, but the reality is that the bans are on, they were on, and they stayed on the individuals they covered before. The sanctions that were going to be placed did not then need to be carried through, because Yanukovych left, and we are just waiting to see how the situation in Ukraine develops. They will be calibrated to respond to what takes place.

We continue to work with our like-minded partners to coordinate an international response. It has been exciting, as one of the nations that has led the fight, to see that the changes taking place now in Ukraine will be, we believe, dramatic, and we hope that they will be permanent. We believe they acted legitimately in naming Speaker Turchinov as the acting president pending the May 25 elections. Today we see they have now put a government in place. Interim Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is in place, and the cabinet is to be confirmed tomorrow.

I again want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is leading a delegation to Ukraine to affirm and recognize the new government, give them our support, and let them know we stand behind them. I should acknowledge the support we are getting from around the world as well, including from the Secretary General of the Ukrainian World Congress, who has expressed his gratitude on behalf of the Ukrainian World Congress to our Prime Minister's government and praised the individual efforts of our Minister of Foreign Affairs for his leadership and resilient position in supporting Ukraine towards democracy and ending the current tyranny.

We have been privileged to be able to be a part of working towards these changes and helping the Ukrainian people realize their freedom and democracy.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

We think it is important to support the Ukrainian parliament's request that the International Criminal Court investigate what went on in Ukraine.

Does the hon. member support that position?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, we are waiting for the Ukrainian government to be put in place. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs and delegation will be there to recognize it and to give it some support, and to allow the world to see that as well.

The members of the Ukrainian parliament are going to be capable of making those decisions and moving ahead. We would like to work with them. We talked earlier about providing them with some of the resources we have, in terms of helping them develop the institutional strength and the judicial strength they need. At committee today, we heard about how important that is. We have been leaders around the world in those areas, as well, and I would expect that we will continue to lead in those areas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member might be able to give an opinion on the issue of working with all political entities in the House of Commons and how critically important it is. Let me give an example, by using what I believe Canadians would want to see. Given the very serious nature of what is happening in Ukraine today, all political parties inside the House have been very responsible in coming forward and showing support, in a multitude of different ways. For example, having observers go there is something that has been talked about at great length.

I have a question for the member, who I know has a considerable amount of influence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Does he feel that it would be advisable for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government to work with the opposition parties to come up with ideas and thoughts? It has been suggested, and I would also add, that we look at a minimum of 500 observers going to Ukraine. I remember when I sat on the foreign affairs committee it was 1,200 that was being talked about at the committee.

Does the member see any role that would allow for opposition members to have more input, in informal as well as formal ways, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, we understand the challenges the opposition has come through to get to the position that we have been at since the beginning. As I mentioned earlier, the minister was in Kiev in early December and was willing to stand with the protestors. Our NDP colleagues were wondering why he was doing that. We are glad to see that they have finally joined with us. We understand some of the issues and problems that the Liberal leader has had over the past week in defining his position on this as well. However, we certainly look forward to working with everyone in this House, and I would say Canadians across the country.

The member mentioned the issue of sending election observers. We talked about that at committee today, and we talked about the reality that there are probably going to be a couple of rounds of elections. We have certainly participated in the past in supervising those election and helping to ensure that they were fair and democratic, and we look forward to doing that in the future as well.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Chair, today in the foreign affairs committee, one of our interveners was the Ambassador of Religious Freedom. He was telling us a bit about some of the things he has encountered. I wonder if my colleague would like to speak to some of the things that were discussed.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I wish I had another several minutes to speak about this because they are important issues.

Ambassador Bennett was in Kiev in January. He has shown great leadership on this file. He has touched a number of places around this world where there are challenges of religious freedom. He talked today about seeing first-hand the plight of the Ukrainian people, and specifically the churches. As well, he talked about the leadership that the churches can provide. They provide shelter and refuge for people; they have provided spiritual direction for them. He feels, and he certainly made a strong argument today, that the churches play a major role in the future of Ukraine. We need to work with them as well.