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.
