House of Commons Hansard #50 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was democracy.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The member sits next to me. I did not hand him the question in the first place. I wish I had. Then I could take credit for it.

The member brings up a good point, which I did not get a chance to address in my speech. I know the minister wants to achieve independence. Although therein lies a noble virtue, there are problems with that, one of which is that we are not giving elections officials the right tools. Another aspect is that people who are within the environment of Elections Canada have a direct working contact each and every day with returning officers, poll clerks, and all of the information that percolates within Elections Canada. They are there to see that first-hand. The auditors and people across the country within the field are there to see when red flags go up. Although the minister is trying to achieve some independence, we have to address the fact that it is not necessarily all a good thing. As I said earlier, we can put the referee on the ice, but if we do not give him or her a whistle, how effective would he or she be?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I would like to address briefly some comments from my colleague across the way, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, and ask that he do his best to not take the word of whomever is feeding him this information. On the day that the bill was tabled, I appeared before the media and said that I was reading it. I had not yet read it all. However, I had read enough of it to be extremely worried about where it was heading and whether it was going to structure things in a very unfair way. I asked the media to be on the outlook for the details. It was the next day that I came out against the bill, after many hours of reading it. Therefore, what my colleague has been fed by way of a line is completely inaccurate.

I would like to address the motion rather than the generalities of the bill; we have already had the second reading debate on it. I want to put it in the context of our request for cross-country hearings to be part of the procedures and house affairs committee study. There have been no public consultations in advance. We had a debate with the minister about how much he consulted, at all, in advance, especially with Elections Canada. We believe, in listening to the Chief Electoral Officer, that it did not take place. Certainly there was no consultation beyond a “hi, hello” session with the critics or the other parties. Therefore, it is all the more important now that we consider the public input side for something as fundamental as this piece of legislation.

It is hard to characterize the Canada Elections Act as anything other than one of the most fundamental statutes in our system. It cannot get anymore fundamental without it being a constitutional document. It is all the more crucial because tradition and convention have been flouted in the context of the bill. In the past, it has been very much the case, majority government or not, that all parties, including opposition MPs who may not belong to parties, are to be involved in some kind of inclusive way before a bill hits the House. That is in order that there is some degree of consensus and buy-in on changes that, by definition, should be consensual and non-partisan. That is not what has happened here.

That is all the more reason that the government and the minister need to be woken up to the concerns that those of us who have had a chance to read the bill have been raising, and that day by day, week by week, more and more people are becoming concerned about. That will only be fully apparent to the government if the committee is able to have some hearings outside of the Ottawa bubble.

I would also like to make a final link: If we had a fair voting system, this unfair elections act would never have hit the floor of the House. If we had a system where proportional representation was built in, we would not have a single party running a majority government. It would be rare in our history that a majority would be generated because it is so rare that one party gets 50% of the vote. The circumstances would be very different. The tradition, the convention, that parties should be consulted and work together on the Canada Elections Act would have been forced upon this government, assuming that it was the government, with fewer than 50% of the seats. If we had a proportional representation system, we would have had a more collegial consensus approach as to how the bill was generated. The concerns that we have been articulating and debating—and I must credit the minister for coming out and continuing to offer his point of view—would have occurred in advance. A lot of the problems in the bill would have been cut off at the knees, if the government were serious that it had no intent to do x, y or z.

We just heard from the minister that the whole question of being able to call former donors is not going to be abused because any calls have to be for the purpose of that. I would like to hear the minister then say, here and now, that he would accept an amendment that says “for the sole purpose of calling former donors”, and that any other aspect of that call would itself be illegal and/or part of the campaign expenses. That would have been sorted out in advance, if we had been involved in this at an earlier stage.

The minister himself did not bring this up in his speech, but it has been brought up on several occasions by colleagues across the way that we do not do cross-country hearings for studies of bills. That is supposedly a truth. That is not a truth.

In recent memory, the relevant committee went to the Northwest Territories with respect to Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution bill. Why? Although it is a piece of text that has to be studied as a piece of legislation, the context in which that bill is going to take root was important to that committee. With respect to Bill C-10, a bill on firearms control, the committee travelled to Toronto. These were for studies of bills.

Members on the opposite side of the House say that they only ever travel for policy studies. That does not help either. There is so much fundamental social context involved in the policy decisions made so far in this piece of legislation that it is important to hear from Canadians in their local settings, whether it is aboriginal communities on reserve, people in transitional situations in downtown cities or urban areas, students on campus, or Canadians who might not otherwise have a chance to testify before a parliamentary committee and are not used to tuning in to CPAC. These Canadians might nonetheless come to a committee hearing to listen and learn, whether or not they are testifying.

This legislation is fundamental legislation, and I think the minister realizes how fundamental it is. There are reasons that this legislation needs to be grounded in a broader consensus and with buy-in from Canadians at large. That is quite apart from the fact that other parties were not involved in bringing it forward.

I would also like to draw attention to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who has spoken about the irony of a House committee travelling as far as Ukraine to study democracy there, including having public hearings. Yet, somehow this is being resisted tooth and nail in our own country.

I have been a harsh critic of the bill, ever since I spent a lot of time reading it in one day because we were having a debate on it on the very next day. I am concerned about every one of the replies that the minister has made. I am still concerned that without amendments those replies do not do the job.

Canadians can read what I have to say on my own website, something that I admit is provocatively entitled “The Unfair Elections Act is a Con Game”. They can read about the over two dozen concerns that I have, none of which have been obviated by any of the minister's arguments, despite his best efforts. I am not going to go into those details.

After hearing from many Canadians, my current concern has only been deepened. These Canadians are not just experts in the field of electoral law or electoral processes, but Canadians who have taken the time to read bits and pieces of the legislation and are drawing something new to my attention. If the social knowledge of ordinary Canadians can produce that kind of feedback to me, my guess is that the benefits of cross-country hearings would also produce insight for every member of the procedure and House affairs committee.

I want to end with a quote from Jessica McCormick, national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, who is in Ottawa, and who hopefully would be on the list for Ottawa hearings. She gives an example of what the effects of the bill would be, which I think members can extrapolate as to why we would benefit from going around the country, at least as part of hearings. She said:

Canada has amongst the lowest youth voter turnout when compared to peer nations. The effects of Bill C-23 will make it harder for youth to vote by complicating the voter identification process and eliminating public awareness campaigns that encourage youth to vote.

Bill C-23 serves to cement the notion that politicians do not care about the issues that effect youth. It is our firm belief that the Bill will contribute to a decline in voter turnout that the provinces and peer countries are actively attempting to reverse. The decline is clearly a threat to a healthy democracy and must be meaningfully addressed, not encouraged.

It is that kind of input that I would be looking for, not just here on the Hill in parliamentary committee, but also across Canada through cross-country hearings.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for an informative discussion and his thoughtful critique of the bill, as I do thank his Liberal counterpart. Both of them are tough and smart critics.

I find it interesting that the person the member cited as an example for the need to have cross-country hearings is someone he admits could testify right here in Ottawa, in parliamentary committee. I also find it interesting that the subject on which he cited this particular person was that of education.

It is clear that there is a correlation between the timing in which Elections Canada started its promotional campaigns and a precipitous decline in voter turnout. Correlation does not equal causation. However, causation can be explored by looking at the data on Elections Canada's own website, which shows that the leading causes of youth non-participation are practical ones: half of them do not know that they can vote in advance ballots; a quarter of those who did not vote said it was because they did not know where, when, or how to vote; and 60% of non-voters across Canada said that it was everyday life issues.

Elections Canada's communications should therefore focus on those things because those facts do point to causation. The fact that people are not aware of all their opportunities to vote is a form of causation. It is documented from Elections Canada's own material.

My question is this. Why have the member's critiques ignored all of that publicly available data that Elections Canada has provided?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I have a very different understanding from the minister of the relationship between causation and correlation.

The minister has spent a lot of time on this, and he is now paring back. Criticism has shown him the error of his way, not on this point, but on the Neufeld report. He was constantly citing irregularities early on, as if they amounted to fraud, or even the serious risk of fraud. Gradually he has begun to nuance because he knows that people have read the report and understand that is not what Neufeld said.

There is the same thing on this score. Causation is not correlation. I asked the minister in our earlier debates why we cannot have the new section 18, as written in Bill C-23, alongside the old section 18. The two sections are not in conflict. The new section is a kind of marching order to Elections Canada to engage in the kind of targeted information-giving that the minister has made the case for being beneficial. However, he has made no case that public education and democratic outreach themselves are not beneficial. That is the difference between causation and correlation.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that the minister has lost the point of the discussion and debate we are having here today.

The issue is that because this minister failed to consult with Canadians, with the Chief Electoral Officer, and failed to work with the opposition parties, we have substantially flawed election law that is being hailed in committee. There is a need for us to take it to Canadians. The committee needs to get outside of the Ottawa bubble and hear what Canadians have to say.

The members have a good reason to express concerns. We have all heard of the in-and-out scandal, the robocall scandal, and the overspending scandals. There is a need for Canadians to have direct input.

My question for the member is this. Does he not believe that the government would be better served by stopping this skating around the issue and agreeing to take this committee outside of Ottawa?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I honestly do believe that the government would benefit from it. There is a trust deficit with respect to this bill. That is one of the things hanging over the head of the government. The fact is that we have been able to show, through substantive critique, that there is a reason not to trust much of what is in this bill. The only way that is going to be set aside is if Canadians have confidence in the process that is producing the legislation.

We are not asking for the entire process to be cross-country. We are asking it to be built into what will also include close study. The two together will benefit the government, the bill, and Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the motion by the hon. member for Hamilton Centre that there should be nation-wide public hearings on the fair elections act, a bill known increasingly across this country as the unfair elections act.

The member for Hamilton Centre proposes that the House direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to hear from witnesses while undertaking its study of the Canada Elections Act. What witnesses? They should include Elections Canada, political parties, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform who introduced the “fair” elections act, representatives of first nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing people with disabilities, groups that speak for youth, advocates, students, and Canadians in general everywhere.

Further, the motion calls on the committee to travel to all regions of Canada throughout March and April, and that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs only proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the fair elections act after the public hearings have been completed.

To sum up, the motion calls on the Conservative government to hold public hearings on changes to the Canada Elections Act, a cornerstone of democracy, so that all Canadians can have a say on how it should be reshaped and adjusted to ensure that elections are above reproach, on how it should be chiselled so that it is solid, and strong, and able to bear the democracy that is one of the envies of the world. If we change the Elections Canada Act, then the electorate should have a say in that change. That request is simple, straightforward, and reasonable, especially with the scandals we have seen in recent years.

There were problems with the federal election of 2011 in my neck of the country, Newfoundland and Labrador. More specifically, there were problems with the election of Peter Penashue, the Conservative MP for the riding of Labrador.

Mr. Penashue won by 79 votes and went on to represent the province in the federal cabinet as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only for us to learn soon after his election that he had broken the law. He got elected by that slim margin of 79 votes by cheating. Mr. Penashue resigned in disgrace. He ran again in a byelection triggered by his resignation and lost. However, that loss was expected, considering the seriousness of the allegations against him, the allegations that Mr. Penashue, a Conservative MP, had accepted 28 illegal donations; allegations that he accepted corporate donations, which were also illegal; allegations that Mr. Penashue got an interest-free loan, which, once again, was illegal, from an Inuit company run by his brother-in-law; and allegations that he overspent the campaign spending limit.

Mr. Penashue basically bought his election and was able to run in the byelection with those allegations against him still outstanding, which boggled the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What would have happened if Mr. Penashue had won and the allegations were proven true? What would have become of those allegations? Elections Canada was supposedly carrying out an investigation and so was the RCMP, but we have not heard a word since, not a peep. The silence across Newfoundland and Labrador and across this country has been deafening.

Was Mr. Penashue, whom the Prime Minister described as the best member of Parliament Labrador ever had, ever charged? Was anyone charged? No one that I know of was. Was anyone fined? No one that I know of was. Is there a problem with the Elections Canada Act? Yes, there is a problem with the act—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is there a point of order?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has done nothing in the last five minutes to discuss the content of the motion. In fact, I doubt that he actually has anything in his speech with respect to the motion before us.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you might ensure and insist that the member get on to the actual substance of the motion, if he is prepared to do that.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, since the debate began, there has been a great deal of discussion about the bill, even though we are actually debating the motion. In my opinion, there is some wiggle room here. I would like to remind the House that the point my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl is making is directly related to the many requests from the Chief Electoral Officer regarding changes to the Canada Elections Act. This issue is therefore relevant to the debate.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I agree.

It is a point of relevance, but it is a valid point that he is making within the context of the debate. He may continue.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, this unfair elections act would actually strip Elections Canada of its investigative powers, not strengthen them. We saw how weak those powers are with the Penashue scandal.

The Commissioner of Elections Canada would be under the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, no longer be a part of Elections Canada. My party and I would compare that to removing the RCMP's ability to investigate breaches of the Criminal Code. How is that going to fix anything? It is not.

Get a load of this. Under this unfair elections act, the Chief Electoral Officer would have to seek Treasury Board approval to hire technical experts. That theoretically means that the Chief Electoral Officer could have to seek government approval to investigate possible election cheating by government MPs.

Two key missing elements of the unfair elections act that Elections Canada actually requested and did not get include, first, more power for the Chief Electoral Officer to request financial documents to ensure that political entities are complying with their obligations. That is not in the bill. Second, the unfair elections act is also silent on the powers of Elections Canada to compel witness testimony. A major problem that Elections Canada faced in its robocalls investigations was that Conservative staffers refused to give testimony. That is not going to change either. I wonder why that is.

This unfair elections act would make voting more challenging for some Canadians. It would mean we could no longer vouch for someone when he or she does not have identification. Here I note that aboriginal people, university students, the homeless, and seniors in residences are less likely to have ID or mail on hand. Some 120,000 people used vouching to exercise their vote in the 2011 election, but they will not be allowed to use it in the next election. Clearly, the Conservatives are targeting certain demographics to suppress the vote.

The Conservatives are also changing the political financing rules in their favour. The unfair elections act would increase the limit for individual contributions from $1,200 to $1,500. That would favour the Conservatives, who tend to receive bigger contributions. The unfair elections act would also allow candidates to contribute up to $5,000 to their own campaigns and leadership candidates to contribute up to $25,000 for their own campaigns, which, once again, would give an advantage to the wealthy candidates the Conservative Party attracts. Conservatives look after their own.

The unfair elections act would remove the Chief Electoral Officer's power to engage in public education. The Chief Electoral Officer would be limited to telling voters where, when, and how to vote, but not why they should vote. Who better to talk about democracy than a key expert on democracy, the Chief Electoral Officer?

Under this unfair elections act, Elections Canada would be banned from teaching our children about our democracy, encouraging people to vote, and warning them about electoral fraud. Tens of thousands of students, seniors, aboriginal people, and low-income Canadians would be blocked from exercising their right to vote.

Between the robocalls scandal, the ongoing Senate debacle, illegal contributions, and campaign overspending, faith in elections in this country, the legitimacy of campaign results, has been shaken. What do we get? We get this unfair elections act.

The Conservatives are focused on shutting down debate. They are focused on ramming through a bill designed to stop people from voting and to ensure that they, the Conservatives, will win the next election. Only that will not happen. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Canadians generally, know the difference and we will make sure that they do.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)

Mr. Speaker, I hope he knows the difference, because the reality is that his own party announced its opposition to the fair elections act before even reading it. I am not sure how New Democrats could know the differences between the status quo and the act without reading it.

Let me focus on the issue of section 18, which the member referenced. The fair elections act would amend it to require the agency to inform people of the basics of voting, including where and when, the ID to bring, and the special tools available to help people with disabilities cast their ballot. Beyond that, it would require the agency to inform people of how they can register to vote and correct any misinformation that might incidentally be on the existing voters list.

These are all things that Canadians need as basic tools to vote. Unfortunately, Elections Canada's own data shows that they do not have it. About 60% of non-voters said they did not vote for reason of everyday life issues. They said they found it inconvenient or difficult, or that they were busy. The fair elections act would ensure that this same 60% of people would be aware that they could vote early through an advance ballot, by mail or at their local Elections Canada office.

How could the member across possibly be opposed to that information being provided?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way said at the beginning of his question that the New Democrats came out against the unfair elections act before it was released, but that is not true. We did not come out against this act before it was released.

To sum up, the Conservatives never let truth stand in the way.

UkraineStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, over the last week I spoke to a number of Ukrainian Canadians in my riding, and I rise today to say with caution that they are optimistic about the most recent events of the weekend in Ukraine.

Things are moving quickly, but finally appear to be trending in the right direction, which is why I feel I must comment on their behalf about the Liberal leader's remarks on Ukraine. When asked about the situation, he said, rightly so, that this was worrisome, but then he added, “especially because Russia lost in hockey, they'll be in a bad mood. We fear Russia's involvement in Ukraine.”

These comments show an appalling lack of insight into the gravity of the situation.

Thankfully, Ukraine has chosen to return to the 2004 constitution, released prisoner Yulia Tymoshenko, and has called for new elections on May 25.

Our government has stated clearly and unequivocally that those responsible for the violence and bloodshed will be held to account, unlike the Liberal leader.

Pyrrhotite in MauricieStatements By Members

2 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I released the results of a survey of the pyrrhotite victims in Mauricie.

Not surprisingly, the results paint a chilling picture. We are talking about a disaster that will cost over a billion dollars. From a residential standpoint alone, 1,300 families have already been affected, and an estimated 3,700 more will be added to that number.

What is more, the numbers have yet to be tallied for the affected businesses, public buildings and infrastructure. The average cost for repairs varies between $150,000 and $175,000 for a residence.

What is surprising, however, is the federal government's lack of concern about this problem, which could occur anywhere in Canada if changes are not made to the federal standard for aggregates in concrete.

The Conservatives are choosing yet again to remain blind, deaf and dumb to the plight of the people in my region. What is worse, the Conservatives are getting rich on the backs of the victims who have to pay thousands of dollars in taxes to deal with this disaster.

In solidarity with the people, businesses, municipalities and the provincial government involved in this matter, can we hope that the Conservative government will at least appoint a credible spokesperson who would agree to sit down with elected officials and representatives of the Coalition Proprio-Béton?

Canadian Armed ForcesStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had an opportunity, along with DART commander Lieutenant Colonel Walter Taylor, to give the Filipino community in Calgary an intensive briefing on our Canadian Forces' mission in Panay during Typhoon Haiyan.

Just seven days after the storm, our troops hit the ground, and their work was nothing short of amazing. DART delivered food to 2,000 children, cleared mountains of debris, flew 184 sorties, installed 27 water purification systems, and gave medical care to 6,600 people.

The mission was so successful in getting the Filipinos on a path to recovery that in Roxas City, they created a monument to the Canadian DART as a sign of their gratitude. Moreover, DART's model of local co-operation was so revolutionary that UN Under-Secretary-General Valerie Amos said:

This is the most effective civil-military coordination that we have ever seen at the field level and should be used as a model for future disasters….

We should all thank and commend DART for the phenomenal work our men and women in uniform have done in Panay. We are grateful and proud.

Winter Olympic GamesStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate all Canadian athletes, officials, supporters, and families on a truly spectacular Olympic Games.

The gold medal win by our men's hockey team was the brilliant final chapter in the Canadian story. Our women's hockey team captured their gold by staging a comeback victory many refer to as one of the greatest in Olympic history.

Our nation stood proud as Canadian athletes distinguished themselves not only in the medal count but also where it really counts. They were modest in victory and gracious in defeat. There were the incredible stores, like the Dufour-Lapointe sisters, the Bilodeau family, the enormous generosity of Gilmore Junio who have up his spot to silver medallist Denny Morrison.

There was Justin Wadsworth, the cross-country ski coach who ran out to give a Russian skier a replacement for his broken ski so he could finish the race. And, of course, the beautiful spirit of Sarah Burke was ever-present.

We are a modest lot, we Canadians, but a proud people as well. On behalf of all our athletes, let me say to the rest of the world, in true Canadian fashion, “Sorry for being so awesome, eh”.

Winter Olympic GamesStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to Team Jacobs from Sault Ste. Marie on winning the Olympic gold medal in men's curling.

This victory comes less than a year after winning the Brier, followed by silver at the Worlds. Consisting of skip Brad Jacobs; third Ryan Fry; second E.J. Harnden; lead Ryan Harnden; along with alternate Caleb Flaxey; coach Tom Coulterman, this team played with true Canadian spirit.

As Team Jacobs took their place front and centre on the Olympic podium, Saultites and Canadians across the country were filled with pride and admiration at their incredible talent, drive, and strength. This is the first Olympic gold medal for Team Jacobs and for Sault Ste. Marie, and it is the first time in history that both the Canadian men's and women's curling teams, with Jennifer Jones, Kaitlyn Lawes, Jill Officer, and Dawn McEwen, have won gold in the same Olympics.

Congratulations to the entire team and coaching staff for once again putting Sault Ste. Marie on top of the international sporting stage.

Rail SafetyStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, there was a train derailment in Pointe-Saint-Charles, which heightened existing concerns about safety in that neighbourhood. The derailment was caused by excessive speed. Unfortunately, this past weekend, there was a derailment in Saint-Henri, which caused a diesel fuel spill.

Our community, which has 6,000 people per square kilometre, has worked with such organizations as Comité NTU and Action-Gardien and people like Yves Lavoie in order to have CN and the government improve railway safety practices or, at the very least, comply with existing regulations.

I have contacted CN, with little or no response. In the House, we have called upon the Minister of Transport to take action, with little or no response.

When will the government and the Canadian rail industry take Canadians' safety seriously? The good people of Jeanne-Le Ber—

Rail SafetyStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

UkraineStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, the events that unfolded in Ukraine over the last few days, in fact still unfolding, are nothing short of miraculous, breathtaking, and profound. The holding back of fundamental human rights—the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech, and the values individuals hold dear—has been broken.

I do not think anyone is under any illusion, however, that the road ahead is difficult, where personal interest will have to give way to the national interest and the overall good of Ukraine. Fundamental human rights and the rule of law must be fostered and allowed to take hold. We look to a free Ukraine, where individuals are allowed to be and become who they can be in a free and democratic society, without fear or trepidation.

As stated by our foreign affairs minister, “The unity of the Ukrainian people is fundamental. Canada stands firmly behind you, in this difficult journey towards democracy”.

May all of those who have paid a price—and there will be many more who will continue to pay the price—and those who paid the ultimate price, be forever remembered. Vichnaya Pamyat.

God bless Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

Winter Olympic GamesStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Mr. Speaker, what an Olympics it was. While we in the House may occasionally differ on our politics, I do know that all of us can agree on one thing, and that is the enormous pride we hold in our hearts for the manner in which all of our Olympians represented us.

Through the highs and lows, they were an inspiration and a role model across the globe. Whether one was an athlete, a parent, a coach, a volunteer, or a fan, there were countless unforgettable memories. Who will forget Don Cherry predicting that our Canadian women were in tough but that with a never-say-die effort would come back for an exciting win, and then predicting that our men would play Sweden and win the gold in the final. Right on Don! That is Canadian, eh?

Who will forget the member of the Canadian coaching team’s passing a ski to the Russian skier so he could finish with dignity before his home country, or Charles Hamelin embracing Marianne St-Gelais after his win, or, has been stated before by my colleague from down east, Gilmore Junio who unselfishly stepped aside so that Denny Morrison could compete and bring home a silver medal. That is Canadian, eh?

We all have countless unforgettable memories of what it means to be a Canadian, and I am so proud of all of our participants for showing the world what it means to be a Canadian, eh.

Olympic Winter GamesStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, two incredible weeks came to an end yesterday in Sochi. Thanks to our athletes, those two weeks were filled with so many memorable moments, that I could never mention them all here.

As Alexandre Bilodeau joked in an interview yesterday, there were a lot of ups and downs on those mountains.

Our athletes were stellar representatives. Their passion, intensity and pride shone through at every single event.

Whether it was Mark McMorris winning Canada's first medal, Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir impressing us on the ice, Gilmore Junio giving up his spot to Denny Morrison, who went on to win a medal, as has been mentioned a few times today, our women's hockey team showing what it truly means to truly never give up, or our clean sweep of curling gold, Canada truly showed the world what we are all about.

I join all my colleagues in the House in saying thanks to all Canadians who represented us with pride in Sochi. It was an inspiration but, most of all, it was a heck of a lot of fun.

Congratulations to all.

Congratulations to all. Go, Canada, go!

Winter Olympic GamesStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks the Canadian Olympic team proudly represented our country in Sochi, Russia. Our Canadian athletes succeeded in spectacular fashion, earning ten gold, ten silver, and five bronze medals; a truly remarkable performance.

The country will not soon forget the inspiring performance of our athletes such as sisters Justine and Chloe Dufour-Lapointe, standing on the podium together with gold and silver in the women's freestyle skiing moguls events. I especially want to congratulate Jennifer Jones and our women's curling team from the St. Vital Curling Club in Winnipeg, Manitoba, my hometown, for going undefeated at the games. I would also like to pay special tribute to the Olympic team coaches and support staff, as well as supportive family members, who were all an essential part of this year's success.

Congratulations to all of our 221 athletes who made up our Canadian Olympic team. As has been said before, go, Canada, go!