John Carmichael

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we just returned from a historic state visit to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan with our Prime Minister. It was a remarkable opportunity to witness a number of different cultures and issues that were pertinent to this time.

Our Prime Minister spoke in the Knesset in what was, without question, a historic presentation. He spoke to the friendship between Canada and Israel, and it was based on democracy.

The Prime Minister spoke to the fact that our country recognizes Israel's right to exist and would stand with Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, most importantly, because there are those who surround Israel who do not believe that country has the right to exist.

For this debate to conclude appropriately today, we have to agree, I believe, that there is a two-state solution that must be found. It will be found only by the two participating parties coming to agreement on that discussion, and clearly they will both agree that Israel has the right to exist in a safe and secure environment.

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as we heard from the previous speaker in this debate, that had he the opportunity to be the whip for the third party, and I incidentally encourage him in his aspirations, then he too would have a problem determining the priority of these different issues, because there are so many important issues right now.

It is important for us to balance all of the issues of the day as they come before us and give them all time. Clearly, this issue is one that has importance. The committee has made its recommendations to the House, and I think it is important that we have appropriate time to discuss this issue.

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to join this debate today. This is with reference to a report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, recognizing Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. Clearly this report, as we have heard from previous speakers, is an important one that is worthy of debate and discussion. I am delighted to have that opportunity today.

The Middle East has been a profoundly complex region for centuries, and the Arab-Israeli conflict has been one of the most persistent issues on the global agenda for decades. Today we have an opportunity to consider how Canada, recognized worldwide for our enlightened approach toward individuals and communities in need of refuge, can appropriately address the issue of Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa in a principled way.

In May 2013, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development heard the profoundly personal stories of Jewish people who were uprooted from their homes of many centuries in Egypt and Iraq, and their subsequent migration to Israel or Canada, for which they have never received appropriate recognition.

In my address today, I will be discussing the prevailing context for Jewish communities at the time of Israel's independence, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the current state of the peace process as it pertains to the government's response to the committee's recommendations.

Large parts of the over 4,000 years of history of the Jewish people is a history of exile, persecution, exclusion, and anti-Semitism. As we consider the questions in front of us today, it is important to recall the profound horrors endured by Jewish communities around the globe.

Throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern era, Jews have experienced persecution almost anywhere they have lived. It is for precisely these reasons that in the late 19th century, Theodor Herzl formalized the case for the establishment of a Jewish state. Amidst pogroms in the Russian empire and widespread anti-Semitism in Europe, Herzl's vision resounded with the Jewish diaspora, and thus began significant Jewish migration to Ottoman and Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

It is important to note that at the time, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities often lived together peacefully in the Middle East, in adjacent if distinct communities in the great cities of Damascus, Cairo, and Baghdad.

However, at the same time as the momentum behind Jewish migration to the Holy Land grew, the geopolitical arrangements of the previous centuries were beginning to unravel. As European alliances erupted into World War I, the weakening Ottoman Empire collapsed, after ruling over a large part of the Middle East and North Africa for half a millennium, including over 400 years in Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Europe's colonial powers took control over remaining parts of the empire, with France claiming Syria and Lebanon, and Britain gaining a mandate over Transjordan and Palestine in 1920.

Increasing anti-Semitism in Europe following World War I accelerated Jewish migration to mandate Palestine, further building on the small Jewish community that had formed, some of which had been present for centuries. During the period of the British mandate, the Jewish population of Palestine grew from one-sixth to nearly one-third of the overall population, and tensions began to grow between the Jewish and Arab populations, resulting in riots in Jaffa and a massacre in Hebron in 1929.

A decade later, back in Europe, the Jewish people endured some of humanity's darkest days, and during the Holocaust, the Nazis systematically murdered over six million Jewish people. While not the subject of today's discussion, it is important to recall the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the impact that this dreadful experience has had on the collective Jewish psyche, and the guidance that this terrible sequence of events should provide to people of conscience everywhere when discussing the modern State of Israel.

After the Holocaust, the international community did indeed come to recognize the compelling need for the establishment of a Jewish state. Canada was proud to be one of the countries preparing the blueprint for peace as part of the 1947 UN Special Committee on Palestine, contributing the services of Sir Ivan Rand, a Canadian Supreme Court justice.

That committee, with Rand playing an important swing role, proposed a two-state solution: a Jewish state and an Arab state, together with an international regime governing Jerusalem. The committee's recommendation ultimately resulted, on November 29, 1947, in the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, setting out the partition plan.

Canada was proudly among the 33 countries that voted for that resolution to ensure it gained the two thirds of votes required to pass, despite pressure from Britain to abstain. Unfortunately, among the 13 countries that voted against Resolution 181 were a number of neighbouring states in the region that would not support the establishment of a Jewish state.

It was no surprise, then, that following Israel's declaration of independence in May 1948, a protracted state of war followed. Israel was immediately attacked by neighbouring Arab states. The Haganah, predecessor to today's Israel Defense Forces, successfully defended the newly established Jewish state, and by the time of the armistice in 1941, had in fact expanded its borders well beyond those envisaged in the 1947 partition plan.

Those Palestinian Arabs who remained in their homes throughout the war period were granted Israeli citizenship. Those who fled were deemed Palestinian refugees.

As the committee concluded in its November 2013 report, one of the main messages to emerge from the committee's hearings is that two refugee populations were created by the Arab-Israeli conflict: one Palestinian and one Jewish. Just as Canada was driven by its humanitarian values to support the establishment of the State of Israel, so too Canada played an important role in supporting the needs of Palestinian refugee communities, both directly and through the UN.

The committee's hearings, however, have brought overdue attention to a second refugee population created following the 1948 war, that of the Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As the detailed presentations to the committee show, over 850,000 Jewish people lived in Arab countries in 1948. As noted earlier, these communities had lived together peacefully with their Christian and Muslim neighbours for centuries.

Following the adoption of the partition plan and the declaration of independence of Israel, Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa faced a changed landscape, becoming the subject of suspicion, fear, and violence. Within 10 years, over half had left these countries, with the vast majority of the remaining families following in the next 20 years.

Today, the once-vibrant Jewish quarters of Damascus, Cairo, and Sanaa are Jewish in name only. In many cases, as the committee poignantly heard, when Jewish families left, they left with nothing, despite leaving land and homes behind.

There is, however, no UN agency responsible for the primary services of these populations. There are no camps housing them. Most resettled in Israel or in welcoming countries such as Canada. As the committee heard, however, these ultimately divergent outcomes do not negate the need for recognition of the experience of Jewish refugees who were displaced from states in the Middle East and North Africa after 1948.

The eventual success of the State of Israel and the successful integration of many Jewish families into other countries do not diminish the need to acknowledge this very difficult experience.

The government is also in agreement with the committee's view that recognition of the experiences of Jewish refugees does not diminish or compete with the situation of Palestinian refugees. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the statements and actions of the Government of Canada do not undermine current negotiations or seek to prejudge their outcome. In this regard, the ensuing history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is pertinent to today's discussion.

Amidst an environment of continued hostility toward the Jewish state, Israel continued to mature into a strong democracy. During the upheaval of the Cold War, Israel continued to attract Jewish migrants from all over the world. They saw in Israel a place where they would forever be free from persecution. Israel was not, however, free from enemies. Following the 1948 war, Jordan had occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control over the Gaza Strip, both areas that were part of the planned Arab state envisioned in UN resolution 181. As tension mounted, the Six Day War erupted in 1967, and Israel's victory resulted in its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as the Sinai and the Golan Heights. A second conflict in 1973 with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan confirmed Israel's military supremacy in the region.

In the ensuing decades, in addition to demonstrating strength, Israel has demonstrated its willingness to make peace with its neighbours when such efforts are genuine. As a result, in 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a historic peace accord, which returned the Sinai to Egypt and ended the hostilities between Israel and the largest Arab state. In 1994, Jordan followed suit, and signed a peace treaty with Israel. The latter agreement was signed in the context of great optimism for peace in the region, with secret talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, resulting in the Oslo accords of 1993, granting the Palestinians self-governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinian aspirations of statehood, left unfulfilled since UN resolution 181, seemed within reach.

The great optimism of this period was shattered, however, with the assassination in 1995 of Yitzhak Rabin by an extremist Jewish settler, Yigal Amir. With the architect of the Oslo accords gone, commitment to the process faded and, instead, nearly two decades of intermittent violence and continued military occupation have ensued.

This brings us to the present day. The nearly 20 years since Rabin's assassination have seen numerous attempts by the international community, and in particular the U.S., to bring the two sides back together to achieve a final status agreement. Wye River, Sharm el-Sheikh, Taba, Annapolis, and Amman have been the sites of summits and conferences, but none have resulted in an agreement acceptable to the parties.

Canada's foreign policy objective throughout has been a comprehensive, two-state solution reached through a negotiated agreement between the parties that guarantees Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbours and leads to the establishment of a viable independent Palestinian state.

Today, with U.S. stewardship, an opportunity to achieve such a historic peace may be before us. Under the leadership of U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, the peace process has begun again in earnest, with Palestinian and Israeli negotiators meeting regularly since July 2013. It is understood that all final status issues are on the table, including borders, security, settlements, and security for Jerusalem and refugees. This follows a period during which hopes for peace had all but faded, and the Palestinians sought to gain recognition through unilateral actions, such as a statehood bid at the United Nations.

Canada's support for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, like our opposition to the statehood initiative in November 2012, is based on the recognition that a just and lasting peace will only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, as spelled out in UN resolutions 242 and 338.

Today, these negotiations may present the last chance to achieve the two-state solution. For those committed to the defence of the Jewish state and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the current process is a genuine opportunity for peace.

Secretary Kerry has obtained explicit backing from the Arab League for the initiative, reiterating the Arab peace initiative that would make an Israel-Palestinian peace the cornerstone of Israel's security in the wider region, in recognition from its neighbours. Unlike the Madrid process of the 1990s, this is a direct, bilateral consultation with strong U.S. engagement. In line with Canadian statements in recent years, it is our view that this is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace.

For these negotiations to be successful, third parties need to allow the process to unfold and not seek to prejudge its outcome. It is our assessment, therefore, that now is not an opportune time to implement the committee's second recommendation. As the issue of Jewish refugees in the Middle East and North Africa is not currently under negotiation, a request by a third party such as Canada to insert this issue into talks at this stage is unlikely to be helpful.

The current negotiations build on years of history, and the sequencing and layers of nuance between Palestinian refugees, the right of return, the recognition of the Jewish nature of the State of Israel, and a host of other issues, lie in a delicate balance. Introducing the issue of Jewish refugees at this stage may set back the discussions and may risk violating the principle that the committee sought to respect in ensuring that the recognition of Jewish refugees does not diminish or compete with the situation of Palestinian refugees.

In keeping with Canada's principled approach to the conflict, we agree with the committee's first recommendation that the Government of Canada officially recognize the experience of Jewish refugees who were displaced from states in the Middle East and North Africa after 1948. Such recognition, long overdue, would be historic and would place Canada at the forefront of the international discussion on Jewish refugees. Canada's official recognition would be one small step in acknowledging this difficult period for Jewish communities of the region.

Given the current delicate state of affairs with closely held negotiations ongoing, it is not an opportune time to implement the second recommendation. By seeking to influence the parties to acknowledge the plight of Jewish refugees at this time, Canada would run the risk of having its recognition of Jewish refugees diminish or compete with the situation of Palestinian refugees. At this stage, therefore, we believe that the appropriate course of action is to officially recognize the experience of Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa while continuing to support U.S.-led efforts in bringing the parties toward a comprehensive, two-state solution.

Peace will only be reached through a negotiated agreement between the two parties that guarantees Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbours and leads to the establishment of a viable and independent Palestinian state.

This brings my comments to an end.

[Winter Olympic Games, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in less than 48 hours, the eyes of the world will be on Sochi, as Canada's best compete in the 22nd winter Olympic games.

On behalf of all residents of Don Valley West, I wish to recognize and congratulate eight Torontonians as they compete for gold as members of Canada's winter Olympics team.

Michael Lambert will compete in two alpine snowboarding events, while Katie Tsuyuki will represent Canada in women's half-pipe. Lenny Valjas will compete in cross-country skiing, and Philip Brown will compete in alpine skiing events.

In figure skating, Patrick Chan will compete in the men's singles, Dylan Moscovitch will compete in the pairs event, and Piper Gilles and Paul Poirier in ice dance.

NHL superstar P.K. Subban will represent his hometown of Toronto as he plays on the Canadian men's hockey team.

As a former board member of the Canadian Olympic Committee, I truly could not be more proud of these young athletes as they demonstrate excellence to the world. I wish them, and indeed all of Team Canada, the greatest of success in Sochi.

[Public Safety, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Bell Canada reported that the information of over 20,000 users was compromised in a cyberattack. As more and more day-to-day activities of Canadians migrate online, it becomes more important than ever to secure information online. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety please tell this House what the government is doing to keep Canadians safe online?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the management is responsible to ensure that it delivers on the promise of managing a crown corporation to self-sustainability. That point has been made throughout the day without exception.

The hon. member addresses how many top executives there are, et cetera. Every corporation has executives who are responsible to do a job and do it every day when they come to work, just as when we come to work in this place. We are accountable to somebody to get the job done, and clearly the management of the corporation is responsible for providing this format, these five action plans, that will deliver the results.

I understand that for the member of the third party, the change is difficult. I would encourage him to have a look at these plans and review them. This is the change that is necessary in a digital economy to get the job done, and I applaud the executives of Canada Post for delivering an action plan that will deliver sustainable results.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post lost approximately $195 million in the last quarter alone as a result of technology, changes in methods of doing business, and decline in mail volume. Yes, we have seen an increase in parcel delivery, but it still represents only a third to a half of overall mail delivery and it is in decline. Clearly it is the responsibility of management to adapt the company to changing times and deliver on the promises of self-sustainability for which it is mandated.

I would encourage my colleague by saying that it has given us a five-step program. Clearly the five-step program should achieve all of the required objectives, and by 2019 we will once again have an organization that is self-sustainable.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain for his thoughtful comments today and for sharing his time with me.

I want to focus my speech on a fundamental truth that is at the heart of this debate, and that is living within one's means. Last year's throne speech highlighted our government's unwavering commitment to controlling spending while investing in Canadian priorities to safeguard our economy. Year after year and budget after budget, we have put in place credible plans to achieve financial sustainability and have set clear targets to bring our deficit down. These actions were crucial as we dealt with the damaging effects of the worldwide recession, one of the worst in more than seven decades. We had to get our fiscal house in order to keep Canadians working and our economy strong.

More than just managing debt, our government is tackling spending. In the same way that Canadian families and businesses have to make tough choices about how to spend their hard-earned money, we are reducing the size and cost of government to ensure taxpayers get good value for the money. We are working hard to make government more efficient and responsive to the needs of Canadians. This is because our overarching goal is to create the conditions for jobs, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. Our impressive track record in advancing this agenda has made Canadians the envy of the world.

Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and more than all of the jobs lost during the recession. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels: the best performance in the G7. This success has not gone unnoticed. In fact, in Bloomberg's recent 2013 ranking of best countries for doing business, Canada jumped from sixth to second place, challenging Hong Kong for top position. This recognition reinforces the benefit of being good fiscal stewards. Reducing spending, lowering taxes and paying down debt are enabling us to seize new economic opportunities as we promote free trade and innovation. These are the keys to job creation, economic growth and prosperity.

I lay out these facts to underline that these same truths apply just as much to Canada Post as it faces unprecedented challenges. In the same way that our government had to make tough decisions and take decisive action to respond to the global economic downturn in 2008, Canada Post must also tighten its belt and develop new strategies for success as it copes with the detrimental impacts of the digital economy on its traditional business.

The pace of postal decline has been accelerating here in Canada and in other developed countries for a number of years. However, it accelerated after the economic slowdown struck in 2008. Companies cut their mailing costs as part of their overall cost reductions, and many opted to shift more billing, statements and marketing to an online solution. At the same time, individual consumers began moving en masse from traditional to digital communications. In fact, Canadians are now more likely to send and receive a text message or email than to write, post or wait several days for delivery. This is especially true with the under 35 crowd. They are a population of people who are starting to move into their first homes and who have led to a growth in the number of new addresses that Canada Post must serve.

Not surprisingly, rapidly declining mail volumes, combined with the need to deliver mail to more households, is causing serious financial challenges at the corporation.As other speakers have noted, mail volumes per address dropped by nearly 25% between 2008 and 2012, and a further 6% decline is forecast in 2013. We do not need a crystal ball to see where this trend is going. A 2013 report prepared by the Conference Board of Canada into the corporation's future projects states that unless major changes are made, annual operating deficits will reach nearly $1 billion by 2020. Quite simply, the corporation's current business model no longer allows it to earn sufficient revenues to offset its costs. Without changes, the future viability of the postal service is clearly in question.

Canada Post is not the only postal service in the world facing these challenges, nor is it the only one to come to a similar conclusion. The U.S. Postal Service, for example, has reduced service hours and the number of employees to address these financial pressures, while the U.K.'s postal service has been privatized, which has led to a significant increase in stamp prices.

The digital economy is not going away. The corporation cannot turn back the clock and change the fact that fewer Canadians are using the mail system and visiting post offices. Canada Post has no option but to find new ways of doing business in order to keep its operations profitable.

Like the people living in the millions of households that it delivers mail to or like any level of government that is accountable to taxpayers, Canada Post must manage its business prudently. Indeed, it has a mandate to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. Its financial responsibility has been a legislated obligation since 1981.

The services currently provided by Canada Post are clearly no longer affordable. The corporation needs to spend within its means in the same way that individuals do as they manage their family budgets. More than that, change is essential at Canada Post if it is to keep pace with the choices Canadians are already making about the way they prefer to communicate.

To meet this goal, the corporation is focusing on the best ways to reduce its expenditures. Since delivery accounts for about 40% of Canada Post's operating costs, it is the most obvious place to start.

Door-to-door delivery is by far the most expensive mode of delivery. It costs between two and three times the cost to deliver to community mailboxes. Let us compare $283 annually for home delivery versus $108 for community mailboxes. They are also cheaper than delivery to a rural mailbox, which rings in at $179 a year.

To be clear, we are talking about changes affecting only home delivery. Businesses with large volumes of mail or located in business zones will generally retain their door-to-door delivery. However, the remaining one-third of Canadians who still have door-to-door service—a minority of people in this country, I would add—will gradually shift over the next five years to community mailboxes instead.

Community mailboxes provide secure mail storage in a convenient place close to home to receive parcels and packets. The people using them will join the 10 million other Canadians who have been receiving their mail this way for decades. Let us remember that Canada Post introduced community boxes back in 1981, so Canada Post has been successfully delivering mail and packages this way for a very long time.

Since labour is another significant component of Canada Post's rising costs, plans to return the corporation to self-sustainability have to address labour costs, including the sustainability of Canada Post's pension plan. The corporation expects to reduce its workforce by between 6,000 and 8,000 positions by 2019. This will be achieved largely through attrition. Like most workplaces populated by baby boomers, a lot will leave the workforce in a few years' time. Nearly 15,000 employees are expected to retire or leave the company over the next five years.

Another way that Canada Post is addressing its revenue shortfalls is by increasing the basic stamp price to $1. As others have explained today, there are ways of lowering this cost by buying stamps in larger quantities, which will help to keep mail costs lower for small businesses.

By taking these necessary and progressive steps, Canada Post will be able to remain productive and competitive into the future. Most importantly, these steps will enable Canada Post to become financially self-sufficient again, as it was for the 16 years up until 2011.

While Canada Post is a crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the government and is solely responsible for its day-to-day operations, all Canadians have a stake in Canada Post's long-term welfare. Canada Post has put forward a plan that it is confident will return the corporation to financial self-sustainability by 2019. It is important that this plan be implemented as quickly as possible and that these results be achieved.

Canada Post must fulfill its mandate of operating on a self-sustaining financial basis in order to protect taxpayers while modernizing its business and aligning postal services with the choices of Canadians.

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the principles involved in Bill C-518, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance).

As we know, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is the legislation that governs pensions for members of the House of Commons and for senators. The bill being discussed today proposes to change that legislation. It proposes to disentitle a parliamentarian to a taxpayer-funded pension if he or she is convicted of an indictable offence under an act of Parliament that carries a maximum prison sentence of not less than two years. In addition, the offence must have arisen out of conduct that occurred before June 3, 2013, and while the person was a member of Parliament or a senator.

As well as disentitling the person to a taxpayer-funded pension, the legislation would cause him or her to lose eligibility for the post-retirement health and dental benefits that normally come with the pension plan. The person would, however, be entitled to receive a refund of the monies that he or she contributed to that pension.

We believe the work that the hon. member has put into this bill is laudable. As parliamentarians, we have a tremendous responsibility to Canadians, and the citizens of our country have the right to demand the highest standard of ethical conduct from us. This is part and parcel of our job.

People elected to the House of Commons and those appointed to the Senate are expected to craft the laws that govern the land, and for the laws to be right, the people who make them must be right. Indeed, the highest ethical standards are an integral part of the jobs with which we are entrusted. Canadians expect nothing less.

When we compromise that trust, Canadians deserve recourse, and justice demands recourse. Let me also reiterate that one of the abiding beliefs of our government is that people in public office must be accountable for their actions.

Strengthening accountability is one of the hallmarks of our government. On coming into office, our first order of business was to introduce and implement the Federal Accountability Act and the accompanying action plan, which demonstrates our commitment to that accountability. This act provides Canadians with the assurance that the powers entrusted in the government are being exercised in the public interest.

Through the Federal Accountability Act and the accompanying action plan, we brought in a series of accountability reforms. Among these reforms were the designation of deputy ministers and deputy heads as accounting officers and the requirement that they appear before parliamentary committees, the five-year review of the relevance and effectiveness of departmental grant and contribution programs, the new mandate for the Auditor General to follow the money to grant and contribution recipients, the law requiring departments to send results of public opinion research to Library and Archives Canada within six months, and the removal of the entitlement of political staff to priority appointments in the public service.

These reforms were followed up by others, including new electoral financing rules and restrictions on gifts to political candidates; the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act; the new Conflict of Interest Act; tougher penalties and sanctions for people who commit fraud involving taxpayers' money; clarification and simplification of the rules governing grants and contributions; the extension of the Access to Information Act to cover agents of Parliament, five foundations, and the Canadian Wheat Board; and regulations to ensure lobbying and government advocacy was done fairly and openly. In all, our Federal Accountability Act and action plan made substantive changes to some 45 federal statutes and amended over 100 others, touching virtually every part of government and beyond.

As a result of these efforts, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, and other public service employees are more accountable today than ever before in Canadian history. Our commitment to accountability has not waned one iota.

I conclude by saying that this bill is consistent with the principles behind those measures to which we have spoken. Since our government came to power, we have worked to protect the integrity of parliamentary office and the conduct Canadians expect of their members of Parliament and senators, strengthen accountability in our public institutions, operate with respect for taxpayers' dollars, and punish those in a position of power who break the law. We will continue to do so.

[Leaside Sports Hall of Fame Inductees, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Leaside Sports Hall of Fame in my riding of Don Valley West is dedicated to celebrating excellence in sport at the recreational, competitive, and elite levels in and from the Leaside community. It aims to foster a community where participation in recreational and competitive sports is valued and where the achievements of athletes and the contributions of volunteers are honoured.

Recently the Hall of Fame inducted its inaugural class of 10 athletes and recognized its first Leaside athlete of the year. They are Howard Birnie, Teri Black, John Child, Cathy Lansdowne, Dr. Ron Taylor, Pete Mahovlich Jr., Erica Gilbert, Lloyd Woods, Dr. Tom Pashby, and Rich Ferguson. Martha McCabe is Leaside's first athlete of the year. She competed in her first Olympic Games, in swimming, at London in 2012 and is preparing for Rio in 2016.

Congratulations to all the 2013 inaugural inductees to the Leaside Sports Hall of Fame.