Kerry Diotte

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, at this time three years ago, the world was watching in horror as Russia invaded Ukraine, staged a sham referendum in Crimea and annexed the territory a few days later. It was a shocking violation of what we understood to be a fundamental principle of our international order that borders are not to be changed by force. Vladimir Putin followed this illegal act with another assault on Ukraine in the Donbass region. This region's conflict continues to claim lives and drive people from their homes.

This issue is not an abstraction to Canadians. With 125 years of Ukrainian immigration to our country, our nation and our people are intimately connected to Ukraine. My riding of Edmonton Griesbach is home to a large part of Edmonton's Ukrainian community, and events on the other side of the world resonate deeply for the people I represent.

Two weeks ago, the Liberal government announced that it was extending Operation Unifier, Canada's military training mission to Ukraine. For nearly two years, about 200 Canadian Armed Forces members have been deployed to western Ukraine. They have provided training in explosive ordnance disposal, flight safety, logistics system modernization, military policing, and medical training. That mission would have expired on March 31, but the government's announcement to extend the mission came at the very last minute. That delay was an act of disrespect, I believe.

Ukrainians are putting their lives on the line for the freedom and independence of their country, and they need the help of Canada. I am in favour of the proposed extension of this mission, but I would like to see it expanded. I am proud to support the package of measures recently outlined by my two colleagues, the member for Thornhill and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. They have worked tirelessly on this, and really, that is why this commitment is happening.

The Liberal government spent the past year and a half cozying up to Putin, and just recently realized he is not such a great guy after all. As part of this effort to curry favour with the Russian regime, the Liberals shamefully ordered the majority of their members to vote against my private member's bill, Bill C-306, which would have recognized the deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the U.S.S.R. as a genocide.

In her recent statement on the anniversary of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote:

Canada is deeply troubled by the politically motivated application of ‘anti-terrorist’ and ‘anti-extremist’ legislation; ongoing harassment of human rights activists, journalists and lawyers; arbitrary detentions; disappearances; and the persecution of Crimean Tatars and other minorities. We denounce the banning of the Mejlis, the self-governing body of the Crimean Tatars, and have called on Russia to reverse this illegal and immoral decision.

My private member's bill and the debate around it called attention to all of these issues. I was pleased to have earned the support of all of my opposition colleagues, but the majority of Liberals voted against it. Some went so far as to claim that the deportation of Tatars did not constitute a genocide. That is an absurd claim supported only by the Putin regime's biggest apologists, including Canada's former parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs.

The bare minimum is not enough. Ukrainians are still fighting the battle that began on the Maidan in Kiev, expanded to Crimea and then to Donbass. In the past three years Ukrainians have proven themselves to be some of the fiercest defenders of the values all of us say we support. They are fighting for their lives, their families, their hometowns, their liberty. They want to be living in a free country that respects the fundamental human rights of every man and woman. As a friend and ally, Canada has a moral duty to stand with them in their fight. Ukraine should always be able to depend on us.

[Criminal Code, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill S-217, known as Wynn's law.

I would like to start by offering my sincere condolences and sympathies to Constable David Wynn's widow Shelly MacInnes-Wynn, and her entire family.

I would also like to thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his tireless work on Wynn's law. He has done an incredible job.

When Constable Wynn was shot and killed in the line of duty, it pointed to a dangerous loophole in the Canadian justice system. His killer Shawn Rehn was a career criminal who was out on bail. His killer was granted bail despite the fact that he had more than 50 prior criminal convictions, 38 outstanding charges, as well as arrest warrants for failing to appear in court. That is incredible. It seems unreal that an accused with this type of criminal record would be granted bail. However, we now know that his extensive criminal history was not brought to the attention of the person presiding over his bail hearing, which is shameful. While it is common practice that the prosecutor provide a judge or justice of the peace with the bail applicant's criminal history, it is not legally required. It is difficult to imagine that Shawn Rehn would have been granted bail had his full criminal history been disclosed.

It is an absolute tragedy that Constable Wynn had to die. His death could have been prevented. This tragedy points to a serious loophole in our Criminal Code that must be addressed. The safety and security of Canadians should be the priority for any government. We cannot go back and prevent the death of Constable Wynn, but we can respond in the present by closing the loophole that led to his death. I believe that Wynn's law is the logical response to this tragic event. Wynn's law would require prosecutors to disclose a bail applicant's criminal history at a bail hearing. It is very simple. It would also mandate that failures to appear in court must be disclosed. This legislation introduces a simple measure that has the potential to save lives and increase public safety.

My constituents in the neighbouring riding of Edmonton Griesbach have been very vocal in their support of this bill. At community events, many have told me that they strongly support passing this legislation. I have also received written feedback from hundreds of constituents with respect to Wynn's law. I would like to share some of the feedback that I have received from my constituents on Wynn's law.

Doris wrote, “It's only common sense that previous charges be included in bail hearings, especially in cases where [there is] a long record of breaking laws and ignoring court dates.”

Stanley wrote, “It will help stop innocent lives [from] being taken by dangerous criminals. Plus a lot of lives could have been saved if this law had been in effect long ago.”

Jeanne wrote, “I find it 'criminal' not to pass this law. Shame on the Liberals! Do the right thing!”

Cathy wrote, “Wynn's law is a must!!!”

Susan wrote, “Judges can't make proper decisions without full disclosure of a criminal's history. Get this law put through. Police and public safety should always come before a dangerous criminal.”

I cannot stress enough to the House that these are real people with real feedback. I am speaking for them.

Bob wrote me to say, “This [Constable Wynn] could be any one of us. The judge definitely needs to be aware of a criminal's past history in order to bring about a fair judgment”.

Wendy wrote me to say, “Judges need full disclosure of the criminal's past in order to make a decision that is best for society, not for the criminal”.

Daryl wrote me to say, “Not passing this law is irresponsible and an insult to law-abiding citizens”.

Herb wrote me to say, “Wynn's law should be passed immediately”. I hear Herb.

Glen wrote me to say, “[Wynn's law] should have been done years ago”.

Al wrote me to say, “[Wynn's law], it's a no-brainer bill”.

Perhaps that last comment summarizes it the best. Wynn's law is common-sense legislation. Our judges and justices of the peace cannot be expected to make a fair ruling at a bail hearing without all of the relevant facts.

Again, Wynn's law is a no-brainer. My constituents get it. Canadians across the country get it. Why do the Liberals not get it?

It is time the Liberal government put the safety and security of law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I could not let that shot go without giving a return shot to the member for Hamilton Centre. He talked about our previous government winning a majority with 39% and that somehow that was not fair. I wonder whether he thinks it is fair that the very regressive tax-and-spend NDP government in Alberta has 54 or 55 of 87 seats with about 41% of the vote.

[Infrastructure, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities likes to boast about his project spending, but on this side of the House we know the devil is in the details. The fact is that things are just not being built.

According to the Government of Canada's own website, which is updated weekly, only one of 127 projects announced in Alberta by the Liberals has started construction. Nothing has started in Edmonton.

Another Liberal promise made; another Liberal promise broken. Why have these projects not started?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the granting of a visa waiver for citizens of a foreign country: (a) what is the Temporary Resident visa refusal rate, for the past three years, and for which data is available, for citizens of the following countries (i) Mexico, (ii) Ukraine, (iii) Russia, (iv) Belarus, (iv) Moldova, (v) Romania, (vi) Bulgaria, (vii) Serbia, (viii) Albania, (ix) Macedonia; (b) what is the rate of immigration rules violation, for the past three years, and for which data is available, for citizens of the following countries (i) Mexico, (ii) Ukraine, (iii) Russia, (iv) Belarus, (v) Moldova, (vi) Romania, (vii) Bulgaria, (viii) Serbia, (ix) Albania, (x) Macedonia; and (c) what are the thresholds or standards which apply when IRCC considers the above rates in granting a visa waiver?

[Edmonton Griesbach, December 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is beginning to look a lot like Christmas, but for many people in Edmonton Griesbach, it is not going to be very jolly.

It is the same throughout Alberta, many folks are left out in the cold. Unemployment is almost 10%. People are bracing for a job-killing carbon tax, and EI benefits are running out. The Liberals are being Grinches. Despite their out-of-control spending, they failed to create one single net new full-time job. Their ultra-green agenda has Albertans seeing red.

My constituents deserve a government that keeps its word and bolsters the economy. I will continue to stand up for those who want jobs, not welfare; who want pipelines, not pipe dreams; who want action, not broken promises. They deserve more than a Liberal lump of coal.

That said, I wish my constituents and all members of this House a very merry Christmas and a happy, healthy new year.

[Crimean Tatar Deportation (“Sürgünlik”) Memorial Day Act, December 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on my bill, Bill C-306, the Crimean Tatar Deportation (“Sürgünlik”) Memorial Day Act. I appreciate my colleagues' contributions to this debate, and I am grateful to hear statements of support from all corners of the House.

I would like to address a request from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I ask the House for unanimous consent to table this document. It is the “State Defence Committee Decree No. 5859ss”, dated May 11, 1944, at the Moscow Kremlin. This decree sent the Crimean Tatars into exile. There can be no more damning evidence than the evil nature of this document.

Seven days after Josef Stalin signed this order, the indigenous people of Crimea were rounded up and deported en masse to Central Asia. At the stroke of his pen, Stalin dispatched more than 200,000 people to what historian Robert Conquest called the “human dumping grounds”. In the 1960s, Conquest was among the first western historians to study the deportations. With the full story still deeply hidden behind the Iron Curtain, he began portraying these events as genocide.

Within the Soviet Union itself, a few brave dissidents drew similar conclusions. Petro Grigorenko, a former Red Army general turned activist, told a gathering of exiled Crimean Tatars, “What was done to you in 1944 has a name. It was genocide”. For saying that, General Grigorenko spent five years in a psychiatric hospital and then was exiled.

As historians delved deeper into the broad question of ethnic cleansing and genocide, the deportations of 1944 were often considered a prime example.

Norman Naimark, a Stanford University historian, agreed, calling the 1944 deportations an “attempted cultural genocide”.

Brian Glyn Williams, a professor of Islamic history at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, also calls it genocide. He is the author of the most comprehensive academic history of the Crimean Tatars.

This brings me to the arguments made by some government members, among them the member for Winnipeg North. In particular, during the first hour, he argued that Canada should let an international body make our decisions for us. He said that members of this House should not exercise their own judgment when we consider events of the past.

This is not Canada's historical position. In 2008, all members of the House came together to declare the Holodomor in Ukraine a genocide. Indeed, the member for Winnipeg North invoked the Holodomor as he fought efforts to recognize the injustice done to the Crimean Tatars. Had we applied this new logic, we would not have recognized Holodomor as a genocide. There is ample historical evidence, expert research, and survivor testimony to justify this recognition, yet no international court or body has bothered to do so. Instead, Canada joined Ukraine and a growing number of other countries and jurisdictions in using our own judgment to draw conclusions from the available evidence.

That is what I am asking the House to do for the Crimean Tatars. The call to defer to non-existent international investigations is a legal smokescreen. Members should not sacrifice their own judgment to this ahistorical, un-Canadian position. The many letters of support I have received show that Canadians want us to speak up for Crimea and Ukraine.

I would like to thank the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the League of Ukrainian Canadian Women, and the Ukrainian Youth Association. Since we last met, they have added their voices to the many groups and people supporting the bill.

Canadians cherish the close friendship between Canada and Ukraine. They understand that the fate of the Crimean Tatars is closely linked to the fate of all Ukraine, and they know that Canada has a critical role to play in support of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars as they fight for the freedom and sovereignty of their country.

Colleagues, in this spirit, I ask for support for my bill at second reading.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 1st, 2016]

With regard to visa requirements for citizens of Ukraine entering Canada: (a) what formal visa exemption review has Global Affairs Canada undertaken since November 4, 2015; (b) what consultations have been undertaken since November 4, 2015, with respect to lifting the visa requirements, including for each consultation, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the organizations and individuals consulted; (c) does the situation with respect to Ukraine differ from the situation with respect to Romania and Bulgaria; and (d) what is the criteria applied for lifting the visa requirement for the Czech Republic and what, if any, differences are there between the situation with the Czech Republic and that of Ukraine?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 1st, 2016]

With regard to the safety and security of Canadian embassies abroad: (a) how many security incidents have been reported at the Embassy of Canada in Moscow, Russia, since 2011, including, but not limited to (i) unlawful entries of the embassy, (ii) unlawful breaches of the embassy’s security systems, (iii) unlawful interception of embassy communications, (iv) personal threats or harassment against employees of the embassy, (v) unlawful entry, disruption or vandalism of the personal residences or vehicles of employees of the embassy, including both Canadians and local employees; (b) what was the nature of each incident in (a); (c) what was the date of each incident in (a); (d) how many times has the government made requests to or has communicated with the Russian authorities regarding embassy security since November 4, 2015; (e) what was the nature of each of the communications in (d); (f) what was the date of each communication in (d); and (g) what response was received from the Russian authorities to each communication in (d)?

[Crimean Tatar Deportation (“Sürgünlik”) Memorial Day Act, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that this atrocity happened. We do not have to do too much hard digging. It is well recognized that these people were deported. It is well known that there was an attempt to eradicate them, essentially. It is a historical fact, and certainly there is a lot of documentation.

However, I think we really have to key in on the fact that this has not ended. It is still, now, going on. People are not welcome in Crimea. We have a member of Parliament who cannot go back to Crimea. This is scandalous and shows that history is repeating itself.