Borys Wrzesnewskyj

[March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I must once again rise in the House to call on the Conservative government to live up to the historic internment agreement signed by the previous Liberal government and the Ukrainian Canadian community on August 24, 2005.

This agreement was for the acknowledgement, commemoration and education of Canadians of a dark episode in Canada's history: the internment operations against Ukrainian Canadians.

Beginning in the 1890s, Ukrainian Canadian settlers transformed the wilderness of the Northwest Territories into the golden wheat fields of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They were enticed to Canada with promises of free land. The government did this to counterbalance the northward push of American settlers into Canadian territories.

These hardy pioneers guaranteed the territorial integrity of Canada's borders.

Today, we can in fact say that they were one of Canada's founding peoples.

However, during World War I, prejudice and racism were fanned into xenophobia, leading to the introduction of the War Measures Act by an order in council of the Conservative government of Robert Borden.

Over 8,000 so-called enemy aliens, of which over 5,000 were Ukrainians, were interned, including women and children. Homes and homesteads were confiscated and some 80,000 Canadians were obliged to register as enemy aliens and report to local authorities on a regular basis.

Then, two years later, that same Conservative government passed legislation disenfranchising tens of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians based solely on the location of their birth.

Back on August 24, 2005, the previous Liberal government signed an historic agreement in principle with the Ukrainian Canadian community. An initial amount of $2.5 million was to be the first instalment of a $12.5 million multi-year package administered through the Shevchenko Foundation.

During question period on March 1, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism all but confirmed that the Conservative government had no intention of living up to that agreement.

To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism all thought it more important to declare in their so-called historic budget that three-down football is a heritage sport worthy of public support through heritage tax dollars, yet this same budget was completely silent on the acknowledgement of and education about injustices suffered by Ukrainian Canadians during World War I internment operations.

What a contrast. In the 2005 Liberal budget, the former finance minister, in his opening paragraphs, referenced Ukrainian Canadians and provided the funding for an internment settlement agreement.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, tore up this historic agreement. There is not even a mention of internment or a future consideration in the Conservative budgets of 2006 and 2007.

This failure to act by the Conservative government, despite record surpluses, is a breaking of the trust. When the Prime Minister was in opposition, he invoked the name of Mary Haskett, born Manko, the last survivor of World War I internment, in a House of Commons speech in which he committed himself to the resolution of internment.

Will the government re-announce this Liberal initiative while Mary Haskett, the sole survivor of the internment operations, is still with us? Will he do the right thing?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is a national icon, the red tunic an international symbol of integrity and respect. The 25,000 rank and file RCMP officers deserve an RCMP they can trust and be proud of, not one that steals their pension funds.

The minister stated that committees are creatures of their own will and that he will not interfere. However, the voting record will show that for months the Conservatives have blocked all attempts to bring this sordid matter forward and they have had the information for months.

Will the government members of public accounts stop blocking the committee from calling witnesses, along with a public inquiry, guarantee full--

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the public accounts committee we heard senior RCMP officers describe in detail critical problems at the top echelons of the RCMP. We heard of intimidation and revenge, nepotism, wrongdoers rewarded, whistleblowers punished, fraud, perjury and criminal investigations shut down. Some officers were nearly in tears.

Why did Conservative committee members for months block all attempts to bring this information before the committee? Was that just a mistake?

[Petitions, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by almost 800 citizens and collected by the Canadian-Croatian Chamber of Commerce. The petitioners strongly urge the government to adopt Motion No. 99 and thereby follow the lead of the United Kingdom by lifting visitor visa requirements for Croatian nationals.

Croatia has made huge strides in recent years and today is a democratic free market country on a par with most European states. Croatia is also contributing internationally, standing shoulder to shoulder with Canada in Afghanistan, and is currently the second largest non-NATO troop contributor to the Afghanistan mission.

It is time for Canada to lift visitor visa requirements for Croatia.

[Petitions, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my privilege to present a petition signed by 244 concerned Canadians that was collected and signed by readers of the Polish-Canadian Independent Courier and members of the Czech and Slovak Association of Canada.

The petitioners demand that Parliament pass and the government adopt private members' Motion No. 19 calling for the lifting of visitor visas for the following EU member states: Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary. These countries are European Union members and the same visa regime should apply to them as they do to other EU member countries.

Canada's burdensome visa regime is a throwback to the days of the cold war and should be modernized to reflect new geopolitical realities. The Iron Curtain has come down. It is time for Canada's visa curtain to come down as well.

[Privilege, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism used the cover of parliamentary privilege to slander my reputation by stating that I uttered, in his words, “a complete, blatant and I believe deliberate falsehood” after I questioned him about the Conservative cancellation of an historic $12.5 million acknowledgement, commemoration and education agreement signed by the previous Liberal government and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

Parliamentary privilege is a right that members use to assist them in getting at the truth and should not be used as cover to slander other members. I will give the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism the benefit of the doubt that he really is not aware that $12.5 million from the ACE program, which was cancelled by the Conservatives, was dedicated to the issue of internment of Ukrainian Canadians. If he tables in this House page 4 of the “Sources and Uses Table” from the Department of Finance, dated November 24, 2005, he will see that the funding was budgeted.

I request that the member fully retract his slanderous statement so as not to further sully this House with his verbal vulgarities and to salvage his own reputation.

[Multiculturalism, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 2005, the Liberal government signed an historic agreement for $12.5 million with the Ukrainian Canadian community for the acknowledgement, commemoration and education of Canadians of the dark episode of internment operations against Ukrainian Canadians. The program was to be administered by the Shevchenko Foundation.

The Conservative government outrageously cancelled the agreement and ripped it away from the Shevchenko Foundation. Will the government re-announce this Liberal initiative in its budget before Mary Haskett, the sole survivor of internment, dies?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite during his speech used the phrase, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. It is interesting that he used that particular terminology because the wrong medicine can actually harm a patient. Using that sort of simplistic approach, especially when we talk about legislative tools, preventative arrest and investigative hearing, which are actually, if we look at it in medical terminology, quite toxic with regard to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We had tremendous qualms about passing that legislation at that time. That is why the only reason it passed with the support of the Progressive Conservative members at that time was because of the sunset clause. We did not know what illness we were dealing with. We were in the post-9/11 world.

I would like to know first of all whether or not the member agrees that this particular medicine undermines the principles of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then secondly, I did not have a chance to question his colleague who spoke previously but I would like to know his thoughts. The Conservative member who spoke previously when speaking to this issue made a comparison with the U.S. approach and U.S. legislation. He was quite laudatory in terms of the U.S. approach. What are the member's thoughts on that one?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the horrific events of 9/11, there was a great deal of confusion. We really did not know what the threat was and what we were dealing with, so these legislative tools were passed and in fact infringed on some of our rights.

I have a question for the member, in that since that time, however, we have put in place these particular tools that infringe on our free and democratic society. Is there any particular reason that we have not used investigative hearings or preventative arrests in the five years since the legislation was first passed?

[Points of Order, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Halton rose with a question during question period, the member for Selkirk—Interlake twice made a vulgar arm gesture. In the name of re-establishing a modicum of decorum in the House, will the member for Selkirk—Interlake acknowledge the error of his ways and apologize to the House?