Jinny Sims

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for her heartfelt and very passionate speech on the situation in Ukraine. As I said earlier, rarely in the House do we see parliamentarians from both sides of the House speaking up on such a critical issue and, as someone said previously, rowing in the same direction.

My colleague has had the pleasure of travelling in Ukraine and has made some personal connections. The Prime Minister has made a very strong statement. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also spoken very strongly and hinted at bilateral relations being in jeopardy. What other steps does my colleague think Canada could be taking in order to promote democratic structures in Ukraine?

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is absolutely true that all parties are rowing in the same direction as we express our concern about the undermining of democratic structures in the Ukraine. As Canadians and as parliamentarians, we are also struggling with how to effectively influence and bring about change in the right direction.

If my colleague were in charge, what steps would he see the government taking in order to put pressure on the Ukrainian government to respect human rights and to respect the rule of law?

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from British Columbia highlighted in his presentation the absolute need for the judicial system to be separate from the executive branch of government.

I would like to ask my colleague what steps he believes the Canadian government could take now to put further pressure on the Ukraine government to start respecting human rights and to make some of the changes that are necessary?

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I will try to answer the question as fully as I can.

Right now what has been done so far is to raise the issue. That has been done both by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The other thing that has been done is this. In the last quote the member read there was a direct hit that bilateral relations were in jeopardy. Those are very calculated steps being taken, and one step at a time. We know that for the Ukraine the free trade agreement is a very important agreement, just as being a member of the EU is very important for them.

We do not want to isolate Ukraine. That is not what I am saying. However, we can use that tool. We could also use the tool of some of our CIDA projects to actually support civil society more. In many ways it is when civil society gets strengthened and the strength is internal that it works from that end. Then our job, being another nation, is to work from the diplomatic end using whatever tools we can.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I agree with those words. Those were the right words to be said at that time. The Prime Minister of Canada was honoured by the diaspora of people from Ukraine originally. It is the highest honour and it is appropriate that at that meeting he talked about a topic that was kind of the undercurrent and brought it out into the open.

It is because the Prime Minister has taken that position already that I believe it allows us a platform to move forward and put further pressure on the Ukrainian government today. I believe tonight's debate will put pressure on the Ukrainian government and then we will have to look at other ways we can do it as well. Often words are not enough. Sometimes they have to be backed up with something and we have a few tools in our back pocket.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, some members may not know, but I used to be a history teacher. One of the things I have learned through my studies, and as I have looked back at different governments, is that as soon as a government loses the absolute demarcation between the judicial system, the executive system and the executive branch, there is a fundamental undermining of democracy. This is where not only the judicial system has to be separated from the executive branch and the decision-making body, parliament, but also the need to protect freedom of speech and immunity for the media so it can report on what it sees without fear of being persecuted. Absolutely it is a core fundamental for a democratic society.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I do not have any kind of obsession with free trade agreements, just so everybody knows. I can think of many other things with which I would rather have obsessions.

Right now, one of the tools that Canada has in its pocket is the free trade negotiations. From what I am reading, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is looking to have those rights enshrined. It is not just having the words there. It is actually putting the words into practice.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the motion put forward by the government for discussion and debate of this issue.

One of the questions that was asked earlier was whether this debate tonight will have an impact anywhere. The very fact that we are having a debate and that parliamentarians are willing to be in the House until the wee hours means that we give this issue significance. We are here because we are concerned about the state of democracy in Ukraine. When democracy is attacked or is undermined in any country around the world it has a ricochet effect on the countries not just around it but also internationally, right around the world.

Today I am hoping that people of Ukrainian origin are listening. If they are not I am sure they will hear about the debate because they have serious concerns. The diaspora from Ukraine exists in huge numbers in Canada. Its members have expressed very clearly through papers they have published that they have grave concerns regarding what is happening in their homeland. They are Canadians now but have kept their connections with their birth country or their ancestral nation and I read in a document produced by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress that it has serious concerns about the undermining of democracy in Ukraine.

We all know that for a democratic system to work there has to be a separation between the judicial and the executive branches. When those two lines get murky, crossed or get into a grey area democracy suffers. One of the underlying institutional legacies or underpinnings of a democracy is to have the executive and the judicial branches separated. That has disintegrated in Ukraine.

When politicians are in power there is room for political debate. We all know that. We engage in wonderful political debate in the House day in and day out. At times we are a bit more passionate. However, that political debate is fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. We share our different points of view. During the electoral process we take part in elections. We express our different platforms. We express our different points of view. In the end, the voters decide.

When voters make a decision to elect a government, in that process they also elect an opposition. That opposition has a critical role to play in a democratic system like ours. In Ukraine it is that system that is being undermined. The leader of the government in power, the president, is using his executive power to punish the opposition for having different points of view. He has done this through the judicial system by direct interference. As we all know, there is only one way to sort out political differences and that is through debate, not by persecution and the court system.

We must ask ourselves what our role is in a place like this. I was delighted to hear that our government representatives have sent a strong message to Ukraine stating that what it is doing is undermining democracy and that is not acceptable to us. A good tack for us to take is to keep talking with that government. We must use diplomacy whenever we can.

We can maybe make gains through the use of diplomacy, but at the same time we do have some cards in our hand. The EU is willing to exercise that card and say that the officials either play nice and start respecting democratic institutions or it is not signing a document right now. It is not saying that it is never going to sign. In a similar way we are in bilateral negotiations with Ukraine right now. We should not say that we withdraw and that we will never have an agreement. However, to go along with what the Ukrainian diaspora has asked us, we should say that any free trade agreement that we sign has to have human rights protections and has to have protections for those who have a different point of view.

That is not us saying that we do not want to have a free trade agreement. What we are trying to say that is we want to influence that. This is a powerful tool that countries like Canada have whereby we can use our influence to further human rights. I would urge our negotiators to do that. Without the protection of human rights and without a rule of law, then we have to question whether Ukraine has a democracy. Those two things are really fundamental.

I am also look at our commitments to Ukraine through CIDA. I notice that in 2009 Canada made Ukraine a focus of its work. We invested millions of dollars to improve economic opportunities for Ukrainians in a strengthened democracy. We need to use and work with the CIDA projects there on the strengthening democracy part. Sometimes we think when we observe elections, which is critical, that is it. However, looking at what is happening in Ukraine, there was a need for some kind of intervention and monitoring long before that. We need to empower NGOs so they can work with civil society to build and strengthen democracy.

Our wonderful parliamentarian project, whereby we brought young people here, are wonderful opportunities to model democracy. Those young kids will take that back to their homeland and they will become strong players right there and then.

I do not think I have heard anyone saying that we need to withdraw all relations with Ukraine, and I am not saying that either. I am saying let us use the tools we have and one of the tools is the free trade negotiations. Let us use that free trade agreement, which is critical for Ukraine as much as it has advantages for us, to gain some protection for human rights.

There is also the money expended through CIDA. Let us look at our mandate, which is strengthening democracy. Let us see how we can use, redirect or focus the work to strengthen democracy by working with civil society organizations.

In a democracy another thing that is absolutely important is protection for the media. The report prepared by the Ukrainian congress talks about the threats to media freedom. When the media is being threatened and it cannot report the news and feel muzzled from reporting what is going on, that is a step toward an authoritarian state. Surely at this time we would not want to further negotiations with an authoritarian state without saying to it that these are the kinds of things we are looking for and want it to take a look at.

Reporters are saying that they are being threatened and they are being quiet. The way licenses are being given out for media outlets, which are tied to the judicial system as well as to the cabinet, also forms a great concern.

There are also human rights abuses and intimidation. This is not just about the leader of the opposition. She is not the only target. There are many others. All of us have a responsibility to advocate for a very strong democracy in Ukraine.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated by the term “self-destruct”. It always reminds me of some science fiction movie I have watched over the years. However, it is a concern that within five days, the digital material will self-destruct, whatever that looks like.

My greater concern is the impact this would have on every day students, but more on distance education. Those who have been in the education field would know that distance education actually allows students to work at their own pace. When they are working at their own pace, we could imagine that some might finish an assignment in a couple of days while others might take longer. One student can finish a history 11 course in a semester, and another one can take three semesters.

In education we celebrate the fact that the students complete the course. This kind of limitation would put all kinds of barriers in the way, and once again, once the students have received this material, 30 days after the course they have to destroy everything.

Why would we be asking students who have learned material, who have gathered things together, to destroy it all after 30 days? Surely we want them to have ongoing learning. They may even read it in the bathroom a few years down the road, we never know.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe that we need to find a way to ensure that artists receive fair compensation. How that can be achieved is a much bigger discussion than we can have here today.

With the system that is currently proposed, we actually have a real danger that consumers will be able to purchase content that they will not be able to use later on. So even if consumers buy something, there is no guarantee that they can continue using it for the purpose it was purchased.

Also, because the digital lock actually supersedes other rights guaranteed in the charter, an area that I actually really wanted to talk about before I ran out of time, it will impact our citizens with disabilities and that lack of ability could change the format of digital materials.