Francis Scarpaleggia

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, here in the House, we express ourselves by voting, and we will be supporting this motion.

No matter which party we belong to, we all defended our constituents when they submitted complaints about Canada Post. We will continue to defend them.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member mentioned drastic measures that have been taken in other countries. How do we know that Canada Post does not have another five-point plan in its pocket?

I do not think we can really put much faith in Canada Post's ability to be transparent and accountable when we see it announcing its decision to stop mail delivery the day after the House of Commons rises for the Christmas holidays. That is not a company headed by a CEO who believes in transparency. We do not know if there are more drastic measures coming or not, which is why we are having this discussion and why we need to have an even larger discussion.

We understand the new Internet reality. We understand that organizations and corporations need to adapt, but what we are questioning is the ability of this organization to adapt and whether it has the management culture to adapt without harming so many Canadians in one fell swoop.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will share my time with the member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

I think it is worth pointing out once again that postal services are essential services. I think that is something that everyone in the House agrees on, regardless of our party affiliations.

Why am I rising here to say it is an essential service? First of all, the government is the one that made this declaration when it put an end to the Canada Post strike in June 2011. The government felt the need to legislate an end to the strike because, as members on the other side of the House claimed at the time, it is an essential service. Everyone needed to get back to work as quickly as possible.

We can see that it is an essential service because, over the years, Canada Post has proposed some changes to its policies. We often see an outcry from the business community, especially small and medium-sized businesses, about how policy changes have an impact on their bottom line. This is an essential service.

The new strategy was announced rather quietly, once the House of Commons had adjourned for the winter break. If postal services are essential, I hope that this strategy is not the first step toward the eventual privatization of Canada Post. As I said, this is an essential service.

Because this is an essential service, it is structured like a crown corporation and not like a private company that is not accountable to the Government of Canada.

It is a crown corporation because when we are talking about an essential service, some accountability is needed. If it were not a crown corporation, we could not debate its future here in the House. It is very important to have that accountability.

As a crown corporation—or quasi-governmental organization, if you would prefer—the Canada Post Corporation is required to consult before making a major policy change. It apparently conducted consultations before it decided to stop home mail delivery. Unfortunately, I have noticed in the past that these consultations seem to essentially be bogus. I will share two examples.

In my constituency, they decided to close a very small post office. It is actually one of the smallest I have seen in my life. Obviously, they asked for people's opinions. The post office was in my constituency, in the village of Pointe-Claire. A consultation was held and people were asked to send their comments by mail or by email. I myself took the opportunity to write to Canada Post to ask for the post office to remain open. People everywhere were opposed to the closure. Even the municipal council in Pointe-Claire asked the Canada Post Corporation to join with it in holding some kind of open public meeting to discuss the matter.

Despite all that, the post office was closed. Frankly, I think that the decision had already been made, because everything that needed to be done to close the post office had already been started. This is the first example of why these consultations seem to be bogus. The same thing happened in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. The post office was closed, even though people were against the idea.

Members on the other side of the House are constantly on their feet in this debate to explain to us that the world has changed. We know that the world has changed: everyone here has a BlackBerry, and the Internet is critically important in modern communications. We do not need to be told that over and over again. The world has changed; email is a common form of communication and we have to adapt to that. Canada Post has to adapt, for sure. In this day and age, the organizations that successfully adapt are those that demonstrate creativity. We hear it everywhere. Administration and management experts tell us that a modern organization must be able to come up with creative strategies, to adapt and to change its culture from the inside, and so on. We have to believe it.

I get the impression that the Canada Post Corporation has not reacted very creatively in this matter. Rather than suddenly stopping home mail delivery, the corporation needed to have been more open to the ideas going around that could have helped it to adapt better, some of which have been mentioned in this debate. That culture of openness is nowhere to be found inside Canada Post and I will come back to that a little later.

Many MPs have received complaints about Canada Post over the years, so they know that in many cases, the elderly and people with disabilities have trouble getting to community mailboxes. I would like to share a case I dealt with a few years back. I will not mention any names because I want to protect these people's privacy. There was a couple in my riding, and both members had multiple sclerosis. The community mailbox was on a little island across from their house. They had serious problems getting their mail. First of all, the mailbox was too high. Second, the box itself was too deep, so they could not reach all the way to the back to get all of their mail. Canada Post was contacted, and a comedy of errors ensued. In the end, the lock was changed, and this person could not longer get mail at all. The community mailbox was across from their house, and even then it was a nightmare for this couple with disabilities. It caused problems.

I would like to share some comments people made during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities held before the holidays about how Canada has a fairly high number of people with disabilities. According to the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability, “about 3.8 million people, or 13.7% of Canadians aged 15 and older, reported being limited in their daily activities because of a disability.” The prevalence of disability increases steadily with age.

Our population is experiencing rising levels of reduced mobility, and we need to take that into account. Canada Post has not done so. There should be broader consultations to get ideas from Canadians about how to solve problems related to our new technological reality.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to subsidies to rail operators for track repair and improvements: (a) what is the process for determining how funds are distributed; (b) for each year since 2006, what is the breakdown of the distribution of such funds, by rail operators; (c) were funds intended for the rail operator Montreal, Maine and Atlantic ever (i) withheld, (ii) reassigned to other operators; and (d) with regard to any funds mentioned in (c), for what reason were these withheld or reassigned?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways were permitted to operate with a single operator; (b) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on main lines with or without an idling locomotive(s); (c) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on side lines with or without an idling locomotive(s); (d) with regard to the railways in (b) and (c), under what specific conditions could the trains be left unattended; (e) what legislative or regulatory framework governs local emergency preparedness plans in the event of a rail accident; (f) with respect to the plans in (e), (i) who is responsible for creating and executing such plans, (ii) by whom are they audited, (iii) how often are they audited, (iv) against what criteria are they audited; (g) by whom and how often are municipalities through which freight trains pass provided with regular reports on (i) the state of local emergency preparedness in the event of a rail accident, (ii) the state and maintenance record of the railway lines within their borders, (iii) the materials, hazardous or not, that are transported through their jurisdiction; (h) if reports referred to in (g) are not provided, why not; (i) how many of the DOT-111 railway tank cars and the DOD-112 tank cars are in use in Canada, for each year since 2006; (j) for each year since 2006, how many rolling stock and track safety inspectors were employed at Transport Canada, broken down by (i) province of work, (ii) oversight responsibility; (k) for each year since 2006, how many rolling stock and track safety inspectors employed by Transport Canada were responsible for inspections in (i) the Greater Montreal Area, (ii) the municipality of Pointe-Claire (iii) the municipality of Beaconsfield, (iv) the municipality of Baie d’Urfé, (v) the municipality of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; (l) how frequently are railway tracks inspected in (i) populated areas, (ii) unpopulated ones; (m) since 2006, when have the rail tracks between downtown Montreal and the City of Vaudreuil-Dorion been inspected; (n) does Transport Canada have a system of evaluation in place, based on the results of inspections by its inspectors, that ranks the operational state of different sections of railway tracks; (o) with regard to the system in (n), if it exists, does this system or database correlate with allowable train speeds on each section of track and with which company owns each section; (p) for each year since 2006, how many freight train derailments, minor and major, have taken place in Canada, broken down by province; (q) with respect to the derailments in (p), how many took place on (i) a horizontal track, (ii) a sloping track, (iii) curved track, (iv) straight track; (r) for each year since 2006, how many cases of runaway freight trains have been reported in Canada, broken down by province; (s) for each year since 2006, how many train accidents, derailments or other, involving hazardous materials have there been; (t) how are the contents of rail cargo verified by the government or its agencies to determine if the contents conform to the contents labels/markings on the individual rail cars; (u) what is the process by which environmental risks of the transport by rail of oil and gas or other hazardous material are assessed; (v) what quantity and type of goods that are shipped annually by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific on lines that run through Montreal’s West Island in each of the last 5 years; (w) what are the allowable speeds for freight trains travelling different rail segments in the southwestern corridor of the island of Montreal from downtown Montreal to the city of Vaudreuil-Dorion; (x) with regard to the speed limits in (w), how is adherence to these limits monitored by Transport Canada; (y) with respect to the slowing of rail speed due to poor track conditions, how does Transport Canada verify that rail operators are implementing reduced speeds; (z) what is the slowest speed at which a rail operator will be allowed to operate its trains over a portion of track experiencing poor conditions before all traffic must be halted due to the poor track condition; and (aa) subsequent to the fatal accident in Lac-Mégantic, what plans are in place for reducing the speeds of freight trains passing through Canadian municipalities?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, many Canadians are concerned about the link between the environment and human health, so I have two petitions. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to appoint a royal commission on environment and health, with a mandate to examine and make recommendations regarding all aspects of the environmental and health impacts of industrial activity in Canada and the application of the precautionary principle to the regulation of both industrial processes and the production, distribution and availability of consumer goods in Canada.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 3rd, 2013]

With regard to the Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel on Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, commissioned by Health Canada: (a) for the period of 1990-2012, how have panel members been selected; (b) for the period of 1990-2012, what has been the composition of the Panel by (i) professional background, (ii) regional origin; (c) are any conflict of interest provisions imposed on committee members and, if so, what are they; and (d) with regard to the conflict of interest provisions referred to in (c), who determines if they apply?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 3rd, 2013]

With regard to Health Canada’s Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines known as Safety Code 6: (a) how was the code established; (b) does the code deal with potential dangers from all electromagnetic devices; (c) what is the distinction between thermal and non-thermal effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy; (d) does existing research on the thermal effects of exposure to RF energy adequately determine whether such exposure is safe for humans; (e) does existing research on the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy adequately determine whether such exposure is safe for humans; (f) what work is Health Canada undertaking to remedy the uncertainty surrounding the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy by carrying out additional research into the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy; and (g) are changes to the code planned to include the most up-to-date scientific research on devices such as Hydro “smart” meters?

[International Development, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, World AIDS Day is at hand and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is holding its replenishment conference on Tuesday to continue the fight against these dangerous infectious diseases.

The United States has promised to contribute $1.6 billion to the Global Fund, and Great Britain has doubled its contribution. Our government, however, has remained silent.

The lives of the most vulnerable around the world are at stake. Will the government commit today to increasing its contribution to the Global Fund?

[Navigation Restrictions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle took the opportunity to list all the groups, municipal governments and associations that support his motion. I would like to tell him that he can add the Liberal caucus to his list, because we will be supporting this motion.

Indeed, we support it, not because we know in advance what will come out of the consultations that the member is calling for, but because our political philosophy is based on the principle that any system created by human beings can be reformed and sometimes improved to better serve our society.

We believe that the idea of a study and consultations with the provinces and territories, municipal governments and first nations to determine whether the current regulatory regime for navigation on our lakes could be changed in some way is a good idea in itself.

Unlike my colleague, I represent a non-rural riding. My riding is on the Island of Montreal. However, many of my constituents have second homes on the lakes in my colleague's region. This is an issue that concerns me in any case, and it is also relevant to me because I am the member in our caucus who focuses on water resources issues. That brings me to my comments.

Canada is recognized around the world for a number of very unique attributes. First, I am thinking of its natural attributes. Second, I would mention the system of governance that we created, and members mentioned the Constitution of 1867, of course. Third, we are recognized worldwide for our technological innovation, which has led to all kinds of products used not only by Canadians, but also by people around the world. To be a little more specific, my colleague's motion addresses these three aspects of our national identity and the image we project to the world.

Indeed, we are rich in water resources. We have about one million lakes in Canada. I say “about” because if you ask a scientist, he or she will say that it is impossible to accurately estimate the number of lakes we have in Canada, for a variety of technical reasons. We can say, for the sake of argument, that there are about 1 million lakes in Canada, and I would say that about 250,000 of them are in Quebec. This issue is of concern to many Canadians, since we have such a large number of lakes.

As my colleague and the Conservative member mentioned, navigation is an exclusively federal responsibility under the Constitution. We have built companies around recreational products for use on lakes and waterways in Canada, much like we have done for snow-related activities.

I believe that Bombardier may have moved away from that, but for years the company sold motorized recreational vehicles that were used on our lakes in Quebec, Canada and elsewhere. Clearly, this motion is very relevant.

Canadian society is constantly changing and evolving, even though our Constitution is very difficult to amend. I do not believe that my colleague is asking for a constitutional amendment to make navigation an area of provincial jurisdiction. However, even though our Constitution is relatively unchangeable, we need to find ways to work within its boundaries so that we have some flexibility. As I said, society is evolving, technologically, economically and in terms of democratic values.

There was a time when there were no motorized boats. It was not a challenge to limit navigation activities on lakes. There were rowboats and there were canoes. The problem did not exist.

Now we have a whole array of motorized vessels that people can buy for their enjoyment, sometimes at their summer home. That is a major shift that requires subsequent changes in order to manage conflicts that could arise between individuals. Some people enjoy boating or using other motorized vehicles. Some people go to their summer home, or live in the area, and enjoy having a place to relax and find a bit of peace and quiet, especially in a world that is always on the go and where some people work 60 hours a week. There are conflicts, and a balance must be found.

Our democratic values have also evolved. A few years ago, people did not think they had the right to influence this kind of decision, such as creating navigation restrictions for our lakes. There was a time when people would say that it was the government's job and that we, in Ottawa, had the power and the responsibility, and that people had nothing to say about the whole thing. We had to live with what we were told in terms of regulations and legislation. That is no longer the case. Nowadays, young people want to have their say. They want to be able to influence what is going on in their communities, even if the federal government, in Ottawa, ultimately has the jurisdiction. People want to have their say.

Based on what I have read about the motion, it seems as though the process to change navigation restrictions is rather cumbersome. It might make sense to find ways to improve and streamline this process to enable citizens—the people who live on these lakes, whether it is a primary or secondary residence—to influence what is going on in their communities. Maybe we could eventually find a better way for this to happen. As soon as we start talking about the duty to consult, things get complicated, especially when a lot of stakeholders have to be consulted: municipalities, associations, outfitters or marinas.

It gets complicated. There may not be a way around the problem, but we have to try. My colleague had the courage to suggest that we do something.