Francis Scarpaleggia

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the government is helping seniors, but as I recall, when it slashed health care funding a couple of years ago, it decided that from now on the CHT, the transfers to the provinces, would all be done on a straightforward, per capita basis. In other words, there would not be an equalization component, as there had been up to that point, which means that provinces that have a disproportionately higher seniors population will not see the transfer they get reflect that fact.

I am just wondering if, as a result of this rather pernicious change, the government is not in some way indirectly, at least, disadvantaging our seniors population in those provinces that have a proportionately high seniors population.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the start of the hon. member's speech, when she said, quite rightly, that the government really has not balanced this budget at all, that it has done so through sleight of hand.

Just by way of analogy, when being interviewed for a job, people are often asked if they have done the job before. If they do not have a lot of experience, the interviewer may ask if they have done something similar before, if they have skills that they have proven can be adapted to that situation.

The Conservative government has never balanced a budget. Not only has the current Conservative government not balanced a budget, but the Conservative government before, the Mulroney government, did not balance a budget. Why should we believe that the Conservatives have the skills and job qualifications to balance the budget?

For the hon. member, given that the NDP made it possible for the government to get the job in 2006, are she and her colleagues not feeling a bit of buyer's remorse?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague's speech, especially when he was talking about RRIFs and the new rules for minimum withdrawals under RRIFs. The question that came to mind when listening to that segment of his speech was why there should be minimum withdrawal rates at all.

If we look at it in a certain way, we can really ask that question. Is the government saying, by having minimum withdrawal rates, that seniors cannot decide for themselves how much they want to take out of their RRIFs in any given year? Does having minimum withdrawals not limit seniors' choices in some way?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member a hypothetical scenario and ask him what he would do.

Let us say he was the head of a middle-class family with young or adolescent children and he wanted to save some money for them to go to university. Maybe he was given some extra money or perhaps his debt was finally paid off, although we know Canadian families are very much in debt these days. Maybe he had some extra cash around, perhaps owing to the Liberal child benefit when it is implemented. Would the hon. member put that money in his TFSA or would he put the money in an RESP, which would earn probably a 25% per year return?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. It is truly edifying to listen to my colleague, the member for Bourassa, talk about the economy.

I would like to share some comments with the House.

Middle-class families often have children about to enter university. They need money to pay for tuition. We note that many middle-class Canadians have a great deal of debt. If they were to find themselves with some disposable income, would it be more attractive for them to invest in an education savings plan? As we know, the return is quite high. I believe that the federal government contributes 20¢ on every dollar contributed, up to a maximum federal contribution of $500. Furthermore, the Government of Quebec kicks in some money. Therefore, the return is quite impressive.

Is this one of the best investments to make with disposable income for a middle-class family that hopes to pay for its children's tuition, for example?

[Digital Privacy Act, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I take the member's point about amendments really being dead on arrival in committee these days. It is getting to the point where the days when amendments from opposition parties were accepted in committee are fast becoming part of Canadian folklore. They are so far back in the past.

I have a question about one of the amendments the hon. member mentioned. I would like her to expand a bit upon it. That is the amendment that would have required credit card companies to divulge some information when a client's card was defrauded and so forth. I am not sure exactly what information and that is why I am asking.

[Pipeline Safety Act, May 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when the government amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act, it weakened the legislation and it also transferred responsibility for environmental assessments of energy projects to the National Energy Board.

We learned last week that the board considers that it does not have the expertise required to assess the risks associated with a pipeline accident that could pollute water. At the time, we were assured that the National Energy Board had this expertise. However, we now realize that the board must conduct public consultations and request further information from companies about their plans in the event of an accident.

I would like the member to elaborate on the transfer of this responsibility to the board, which cannot fully discharge it.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done some exceptional work on the issue of oversight of our national security agencies. I would like her opinion as to why the government is so doggedly committed to avoiding oversight. For example, we know that the government will not create an oversight committee, but there is also another issue which the Liberals tried to resolve through an amendment in committee. That issue revolves around SIRC's mandate to review operations undertaken by CSIS to reduce threats to Canada.

The bill requires that the committee, SIRC, study “at least one aspect” of CSIS' activities. Why only one aspect? Why not more than one aspect? Why not all aspects?

Why is the government doing all it can to avoid oversight? What is it hiding?

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. He seems to have forgotten that it was a Liberal government that brought in the anti-terrorism act and he seems to have also forgotten that two or three years ago, the Liberal opposition supported the reintroduction of preventative arrests, which had sunsetted under the anti-terrorism act.

My question has to do more with how we ensure that any bill meant to protect the safety and security of Canadians is effective in the sense that it would not create an abuse of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would then lead to the bill being challenged and weakened. That is a problem. When we have a bill that aims to achieve something, if it is then challenged and struck down by the courts and weakened, we have not achieved our objective.

I think it is very important that measures be taken to ensure that the bill would be solid against a challenge.

I would like to hear why the member feels the bill will not be challenged and that the courts will always agree with the bill, in all aspects.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when we interview people to do a job, we often ask them if they have done the job before. If they do not have that much direct experience we might ask if they have done something comparable that could build our confidence that they would be able to do the job.

The government tells us that it will have a balanced budget and that it will have a surplus and so on, but what is that claim rooted in? Has the Conservative Party in government ever done that before? I do not think so. Perhaps once under R.B. Bennett during the Great Depression. Therefore, there is very little confidence-building matter here.

In terms of a more recent example, I would just like to talk about the Mulroney government experience. Under the Trudeau government, the annual average deficit was 2.9% of GDP between 1969 and 1980. Under the Mulroney government, the average annual deficit was 6.7% of GDP, and the debt burden rose dramatically under the Conservative government of the day, from 37.5% of GDP in 1983-84 to 66.6% in 1994-95.

Why should Canadians believe that the government will be able to balance the budget and run a surplus when it has not done so for a very long time?