Laurie Hawn

[Ukraine, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on Ukraine at this important and troubling juncture. Let me just say, for my Ukrainian friends.

[Member speaks in Ukrainian language].

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Since we last met in the House in a special session to discuss Ukraine, in December of last year, the situation in this beleaguered country has indeed deteriorated significantly. The government of Viktor Yanukovych has become even more brutal and more authoritarian. Acts of repression and intimidation have become well-worn tactics of the administration and of the security services. The use of violence by the state against peaceful protestors has become routine and widespread. The free press, brave journalists, religious figures and democracy activists have been muzzled. Ukrainians have been beaten and kidnapped and some, indeed, have been killed.

Tonight, the people of Ukraine face off against a government that has squandered whatever fragment of legitimacy it might once have had. The Yanukovych government has brought this situation upon itself, exacerbating civil unrest by using thuggish strong-arm tactics to try to pull the protest movement apart and by ignoring parliamentary process to push through a new set of repressive and illegitimate laws designed to silence legitimate dissent and facilitate a crackdown. The brave people of Ukraine could not be expected to be docile and submissive in the face of such repression. Ukrainians are brave and determined people and they know how to endure unbelievable hardship and tyranny, as they demonstrated a long time ago during the Holodomor. They will not let their country creep toward tyranny and dictatorial rule.

This protest movement started off in early December as a reaction to the unpopular and last-minute decision by Viktor Yanukovych to reject an offer for closer association with Europe, an offer that would have benefited all Ukrainians. However, because of the government's disproportionate and unprovoked counterattack on the protestors and on the ideals they espouse, this movement has become something more. It is not only about Ukraine's relationship with Europe and the communities of western democracies; the protestors demand an accountable government that respects human rights and the rule of law. This movement is now spreading across the country, and its outcome will be decisive for the future of Ukraine.

On the evening of January 25, in talks between the government and Ukraine's main opposition leaders, Yanukovych offered two key opposition leaders the posts of prime minister and deputy prime minister in a government that he, Yanukovych, would continue to lead, along with some minor concessions whereby he agreed to amend, not repeal, the draconian anti-protest laws he had pushed through his parliament 10 days prior. The opposition leaders, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Vitali Klitschko, rejected the offers, as they should. They rejected these offers because they constituted an attempt to co-opt the opposition, not accommodate it.

The opposition's demands are legitimate and they are clear. They are to release all citizens who have been detained by law enforcement bodies for participation in protest actions that followed adoption of the dictatorship laws on January 16, 2014; to pass a law that exempts from responsibility and guarantees absence of criminal responsibility in the future for participants in protests that took place after January 16, 2014; to invalidate the package of dictatorship laws, passed on January 16, which grossly violate the Ukrainian constitution and other long-established legal instruments and procedures; to begin the process of revising the Ukrainian constitution to better protect civil rights and liberties; and finally, to dismiss the cabinet of ministers, so many of whom have had a direct hand in facilitating this crackdown against legitimate civil dissent.

I believe that Canada should support these calls for change and that we should encourage the Ukrainian government to re-engage in talks with the opposition on the basis of these principles. In this respect, I am encouraged by the news today that the United Nations will dispatch a mediator to Ukraine. In the meantime, the opposition and the Euromaidan movement need Canada's moral, political, diplomatic and material support, and they can count on it.

At the outset of the crisis on December 6, the Minister of Foreign Affairs travelled to Kiev. He expressed Canada's deep disappointment that the Ukrainian government had, in balking at implementing the measures necessary to sign an association agreement with the European Union, effectively suspended that country's path toward democratic development and economic prosperity, all at the hands, frankly, of Vladimir Putin and Russia. This was clearly not the wish of the Ukrainian people.

While in Kiev, the Minister of Foreign Affairs met with his Ukrainian counterpart, Leonid Kozhara, to express grave concerns about the Ukrainian government's crackdown on mass protests against its decision to suspend negotiations with the European Union.

The minister also visited Independence Square, where he personally met with many of the protesters. We saw that on television. People in the square chanted, “Thank you, Canada” and cheered when the minister arrived. Afterwards, the minister said:

The clear signals of the Ukrainian people have been broadcast around the world, and the most concerning and disappointing aspect has been the government's reaction to these peaceful protests. We will continue to stand with those Ukrainians that believe in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Canada sent more than two dozen election observers to Ukraine to monitor parliamentary byelections being held amid this crisis, on December 15, in five electoral districts where electoral fraud had invalidated the results of the nationwide parliamentary elections of 2012.

Through the end of December and into January, the Yanukovych government, seeing that the protesters in Kiev's Independence Square showed no signs of abandoning either their posts or their principles, could have taken this as a signal to begin negotiations with the opposition. He could have pulled police and interior ministry forces back from a confrontational posture. He could have taken steps to show that he had heard the will of the people and would respect and recognize a form of protest that had been both peaceful and popular.

Yanukovych did none of this. Instead, he ratcheted up the pressure. He maligned and defamed the opposition leadership. He loosened the reins on his security forces, and he enacted new repressive laws. This is when the beatings, the disappearances, and the killings began. In response, the protest movement spread, and while remaining remarkably restrained, naturally became more volatile in some quarters.

Yanukovych's justice minister threatened to impose a state of emergency. This is the state of affairs in Ukraine tonight. The international community is rightly concerned.

I have mentioned that the United Nations announced today that it will dispatch a mediator to Kiev. We shall see in the days ahead whether this initiative will produce positive results for the people of Ukraine. I certainly hope it does.

The European Union has condemned the government's excesses and has called for restraint. The United States has revoked the visas of Ukrainian authorities deemed to have had a hand in these acts of oppression. Like Canada, the U.S. has also said that all policy options for holding responsible those implicated in acts of violence and repression may remain on the table.

The Chairperson-in-Office of the OSCE, Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter, has called on the Ukrainian authorities to do their utmost to prevent a further escalation of tension, to carry out investigations promptly, and to bring those responsible for the casualties and violence to justice.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has pointed out that the Ukrainian government is ultimately responsible for protecting peaceful demonstrators and that a sovereign, independent, and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security.

Whatever direction this crisis takes, the Ukrainian people should know that they can count on support from their friends in Canada. As evidence, Canada's embassy in Kiev has been engaged with the Maidan and with key opposition figures as well as with the government throughout this crisis.

Our diplomats have conducted spot checks and have maintained a visible presence at protest sites in a clear demonstration that Canada and the world is watching. No act of violence or oppression will go unnoticed or unaccounted for by Canada.

At the same time, our embassy has been closely coordinating positions, messaging, and diplomatic actions on the ground in Kiev with our American and European partners, all with a view to urging restraint while demanding accountability for the democratic will of the Ukrainian people.

Canada's $20 million a year development assistance program in Ukraine is targeted towards supporting democratic civil society, instituting electoral reform, combatting corruption, and helping small and medium enterprises in Ukraine grow.

Since Ukraine's renewed independence in 1991, Canada has played a pioneering and influential role, promoting freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in this important country with which Canadians share such deep historical, cultural, and people-to-people ties. That role will continue, especially in the midst of crisis.

The Government of Canada is determined to continue to assist the Ukrainian people in achieving their aspirations for a fully free and democratic society. They must know that they have our support. We share their values. We share their aspirations. Their struggle is our struggle.

[Member spoke in Ukrainian]

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. friend's opinion. However, I will take a bit of exception to the suggestion that there are no needles in the neighbourhood around safe injection sites. In Edmonton, we do not have a safe injection site. That is a valid point. However, it has been our experience that the needles are out there regardless of whether or not there is a safe injection site. It may affect a very small amount of the total out there, but it really does not impact or affect the hazard of needles in the community.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my cynical friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his comments.

What we have an abiding—not new-found—love for is common sense and balance. My friend calls the criteria impossible to meet. The court outlined factors that the minister must consider for applications. They seem like common sense to me: the impact of such a facility on crime rates; the local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; the resources available to support its maintenance; and the expression of community support or opposition. None of those sounds radical to me.

My friend mentions support from various folks. That is a fair comment because there are some. I will remind the House of the comments by the president of the Canadian Police Association that I quoted in my speech, which basically said it is vital for the views of local police to be taken into account, among other things. Therefore, this is not a new-found love for anything other than simple common sense and balance.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in regard to the respect for communities act. As my colleagues on this side of the House have often stated in the course of this debate—and the members opposite, apparently, wholly disagree—Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. The respect for communities act would ensure that parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities, and it deserves support from all members of this House, regardless of ideological belief. As my colleagues have outlined, the bill would contribute to the public health and public safety of Canadian communities.

I would like to focus in particular on the importance that these amendments place on input from the public, from potentially affected communities and from relevant stakeholders such as public health officials and local law enforcement.

First, here is a little background. As those who have been listening carefully to the debate in the House will know, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prohibits activities with controlled substances, including possession, import, export, production and distribution of controlled substances except as authorized under the act, its regulations or a section 56 exemption. The CDSA applies to both licit and illicit controlled substances. Section 56 of the act provides the Minister of Health with the authority to grant exemptions from the application of the act or its regulations “...if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest”.

This section has also been used in the past to allow for routine activities with illicit substances, such as training law-enforcement dogs to detect drugs. However, it has been the case in the past that the same section has been used for activities that were not originally envisioned, those being supervised injection sites.

The respect for communities act, which we are debating today, would require any potential applications for supervised drug injection sites in Canada to address specific criteria before such applications would be considered. It also contains a plethora of additional criteria that, for some reason, the New Democrats are systematically opposed to. These include, of all things, scientific evidence. That, in fact, is the first item in the bill.

Throughout the course of the debate we have had on the bill already, we have heard the opposition members claim that there are numerous studies already existing that provide evidence that injection sites have medical value. That is a completely fair viewpoint. In fact, that makes the job of the applicants easier. They should simply submit those studies. The principal issue here is that many of those studies the New Democrats are referencing refer to the use of individual substances at supervised injection sites, like heroin. For the members opposite, what about other substances like, perhaps, cocaine or ecstasy? Studies that would speak to the pros or cons of an injection site for heroin would surely not be applicable to those drugs, yet they fall into the same category of illicit substances in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

That is why it is important that the studies and evidence that specifically relate to the activities that are proposed for the individual site be submitted with the application. That is why it is important to also note that these applications would be judged on a case-by-case basis.

No two locations would have exactly the same challenges. This is why it is important that the minister be aware of the issues facing each and every individual proposed site, so that a fair decision based on the facts can be rendered for every unique situation.

Given that no current statutory framework exists for such applications, this legislation would not only address a current gap but would also ensure that relevant community voices are heard in the process, as required by the 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject. Given the serious risks associated with the use and creation of illicit substances, our government agrees with the Supreme Court that exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to undertake activities with them at a supervised injection site should be limited to exceptional circumstances, only once rigorous criteria have been addressed.

One of the criteria our government is proposing that follows the court's ruling is that any applicant seeking an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised injection site must provide evidence of community consultations from a broad range of groups from the municipality in which the site would be located. This would include a summary of the opinions of community groups on the proposed activities, as well as copies of all written submissions received and steps that would be taken to address any relevant concerns that are raised during the consultations. The Supreme Court indicated that the minister must take into account these expressions of community support or opposition, if any, when considering an application for an exemption. How the NDP can oppose a requirement that is mandated by the Supreme Court is beyond me.

The proposed legislation would provide an opportunity for this community input into the application process related to supervised injection sites. It would provide greater transparency to the process. It would provide the minister with important information needed to assess the applications on a case-by-case basis.

This bill demonstrates once again that listening to local voices, maintaining safe communities and protecting public health are top priorities for this government, and they should be top priorities for anybody in this House.

Under the proposed approach, applicants for supervised drug injection sites would need to provide information outlining the views of a number of key community stakeholders who are considered relevant to the success or failure of a site. This would include stakeholders such as municipal leaders, the lead public health professional in the province or territory, the licensing bodies for physicians and nurses in that province or territory, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and public safety and, of course, the head of local law enforcement. This just makes sense.

As the president of the Canadian Police Association has said:

While treating drug addiction is an important goal, my experience in Vancouver is that these sites also lead to an increase in criminal behaviour and disorder in the surrounding community and have a significant impact on police resources, and that's why it would be vital for the views of local police to be taken into account.

In this new approach, the Minister of Health would have the authority to post a notice of application regarding any exemption application received related to a supervised consumption site for a 90-day public comment period to allow members of the public to provide their views. This public comment period would provide an opportunity for a broad range of stakeholders to make their views known to the minister. Any relevant feedback would be taken into account by the minister as she considers the application for an exemption.

This information would be combined with other rigorous application criteria intended to balance public health and public safety considerations. It would allow the minister to make an informed decision when considering an exemption application for activities with illicit substances at a supervised injection site.

To reiterate, these application criteria that would be required under the proposed legislation build upon the factors outlined in the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

In conclusion, given the serious risks involved, our government believes that any application involving illicit drugs under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must be given serious and careful assessment. This legislation is designed to ensure a rigorous approach to future applications for exemptions to conduct activities with illicit substances at supervised consumption sites. It would provide greater clarity concerning the application process, and it would provide crucial information to the minister about the wishes and views of the local communities that could potentially be affected by the proposed site.

The bill would help protect the health and safety of Canadians and balance this with consideration of the public health impacts related to illicit drug use in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. It would also ensure that the voices of local communities are heard and taken into account in the decisions that affect them.

I urge every member of the House to vote in favour of the proposed legislative changes debated here today to help ensure that our government can continue to keep communities safe and abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.

With that, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Youth Empowerment and Support Services, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization in Edmonton that makes a huge difference in the lives of young people at risk.

In 1982, Youth Empowerment and Support Services, YESS, opened its doors to fill the gap between Child and Family Services and adult support systems for young people between the ages of 15 and 20. For some very important years, these young people had no one to turn to, no assistance for housing, no one to help them through high school, and no one to help them eat, sleep, or live safely. It is not surprising that a lot of these young people ended up on the streets, became involved with drugs or prostitution, or just gave up.

These kids are from across all demographic spectra, and many have faced physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; abandonment; mental health issues; and substance abuse. Some have never been taught age-appropriate life skills and do not know how to look after themselves properly. An increasing number are refugees or immigrants. All are suffering and seeking guidance, stability, and a caring environment in which to grow and achieve their goals.

YESS provides shelter, safety, and hope for youths facing difficult realities. I am proud to be one of their local champions and urge all Edmontonians to support their efforts.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently here and in the lobby to my colleague's speech.

Something that is missed is that supervised injection sites do not provide drugs to the folks who go there. Addicts buy these drugs on the street from dealers and that money goes directly to organized crime, which I do not think anybody supports.

Through the bill, we are simply trying to provide the Minister of Health with some documentation from the local community and the local police force that says they support that.

Since the New Democrats will obviously oppose that community involvement with this project, is it their position that these sites should not only be approved without such consultations, but that they should also provide dangerous and addictive drugs like heroin to these people?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. He talked about the 42,100 jobs for building the American part of Keystone.

I have a couple of questions. The first one is this. If Keystone were not approved, would those 42,100 jobs suddenly come to Canada for a project that is not happening, or would it simply eliminate the thousands of jobs that are already happening in Canada?

I am not finished.

He talked about wanting to upgrade Canadian product before it gets shipped overseas. There is a project, not on the books yet but being proposed, for an extremely high tech, advanced, environmentally friendly refinery in Kitimat to upgrade Canadian raw products before they are shipped overseas. Would the NDP support that?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know everybody is having fun with this and so on, but there are certain words that are considered parliamentary, and some that are considered unparliamentary. I believe that calling somebody, or a party, stupid, is probably unparliamentary. I leave it to you to make that judgment.

[Veterans Affairs, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with Remembrance Day only a week away, I am sure we have all reflected on those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to Canada. From the War of 1812 to the present day in Afghanistan, men and women in uniform have stood up to defend the values that, as Canadians, we continue to hold so very dear. I just wish that hon. member agreed.

Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on any activities he has planned to remember those who gave their lives so that we may live ours in peace and security?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

It is called hard work.