Francis Scarpaleggia

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, caisses populaires and financial co-operatives across Canada are an integral part of this country's economic history. Caisses populaires have been around for a very long time. When I was in elementary school, I remember the caisse populaire coming to our school and we all handed over 10¢ every Friday. We were learning to save.

Credit unions play a very important role in a very stable banking system—thank God—based on a limited number of financial institutions. We need balance. On the one hand, we need good, strong major banks, and on the other hand, we need a more grassroots financial system to offset the concentrated strength of the chartered financial institutions.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when I worked on my speech this the weekend, I looked furiously for some numbers and some comparative tables that would allow us to get some kind of an historical perspective on what was being done and noticed the exact same thing.

There seems to be an effort of subterfuge, to basically hide the realities of this budget in an historical context. I find that quite ironic. While the government is hiding what it is doing, it is spending large sums of money promoting itself and its supposed good works on television. Even a small portion of that advertising money could have been used to keep the ELA going, which is known as the best freshwater laboratory in the world. It is a travesty that it is being shut down.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak about budget 2013. This budget obviously leaves much to be desired, and that is why we will vote against it. However, there is one positive aspect. Despite the budget's general underlying idea of cutting spending, and therefore slowing economic growth, the government at least has not cancelled two very positive measures that were introduced by previous Liberal governments.

I am obviously talking, first of all, about the gas tax. Acknowledging that there were major municipal infrastructure needs at the time, the Liberals very wisely introduced this measure, which channels funds from the gas tax to the municipalities. That measure remains intact. The second measure dating back to previous Liberal governments is the GST exemption for the municipalities. In other words, the municipalities do not have to pay GST as a result of this earlier measure.

That is the positive aspect of this budget. However, it has a lot of negative aspects. I would like to talk a little about infrastructure. We see across Canada and North America that now is the time to renew our infrastructure. I am not the one saying it. We need only read the newspapers and listen to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We really need to renew and repair our infrastructure, and in other cases we must build new infrastructure if we want to guarantee ongoing economic growth.

What disappoint us in this budget are the cuts to the building Canada fund over the next two years. This makes us wonder whether these cuts are based on an economic argument or a political argument. In other words, is the purpose of these cuts simply to enable the government to achieve its target of a balanced budget just in time for the next election, or are they being made for economic reasons? I doubt they are being made for economic reasons since this measure will slow economic growth. I sincerely believe these infrastructure investment cuts are being made for purely political reasons, to benefit the Conservative Party and further its political objectives.

Driving on roads that are in poor condition costs drivers money. Every time we have to go to a service centre to have our wheels aligned or a flat tire changed because our car hit a pothole, that costs us money. I know the government likes to talk about private investment, but taxpayers could invest that money in an RRSP, for example. Then there would be more money in their RRSPs 10 or 20 years later, which would be good for their eventual retirement. When we do not invest in infrastructure, that costs people a lot of money.

I would like to cite an American example from a study conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers. That study was based on figures from 2009. The American Society of Civil Engineers found that the United States had lost $78 billion as a result of traffic jams, which bring cars to a halt. That holds up traffic and wastes gasoline, since cars do not move forward. Those losses cost Americans $78 billion. Repairs to cars as a result of potholes and other causes totalled $67 billion in the United States in 2009. That is not peanuts.

In addition, more car accidents happen when infrastructure is in poor condition. That is a fact. Car accidents in the United States, many of which were due to a road system in poor condition, cost $230 billion in 2009. Not investing in infrastructure is an expensive proposition.

As we know, investing in infrastructure is costly. However, it is highly effective in creating jobs. In 2009, the University of Massachusetts Amherst concluded from research and analysis that every billion dollars spent on infrastructure creates 18,000 jobs. That is 30% more than if we took that billion dollars and gave it back in the form of tax cuts. Investing in infrastructure is very effective. It is an effective way of creating jobs, and people obviously save the time and money they would have had to spend on car repairs.

Infrastructure must also be in good condition if we want to promote future economic growth. Economic activity cannot grow without infrastructure. Good infrastructure means strong economic growth in the long run.

As Liberal water policy critic, I observed something a little while ago, and now it is all starting to make sense. I observed that proposed waste water regulations were diluted between Canada Gazette part I, a part of the regulation-making process, and Canada Gazette part II.

What that means is obviously the quality of our water will not be as high as it would have been, but it also means that it will not be necessary to spend as much on waste water plants as we would if the regulations were stricter.

I am wondering now if the government diluted waste water regulations intentionally in order to minimize how much money it would have to invest across Canada in plant upgrades and construction of new plants.

Now it is all starting to make sense when I look at the budget and the political objective of balancing the budget. I am not saying that balancing the budget is not a good idea for the economy, but does it have to be by the fall of 2015? I am not so sure.

[Petitions, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have 23 petitions here signed by Canadians who are appalled and puzzled by the government's decision to close down the Experimental Lakes Area, the greatest fresh-water laboratory in the world.

The petitioners do not understand why the government would close down the biggest fresh-water laboratory in the world.

[Government Advertising, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, more than half of Canadians surveyed have reacted negatively to the government's non-stop economic action plan advertising, calling the ads, in turn, “political”, “a waste of taxpayers' money” and even “junk”.

When will the government free Canadians from its wasteful campaign of self-promotion and, instead, use the money, for example, to appoint a deputy corrections commissioner for aboriginal inmates, as recommended by the Correctional Investigator, Howard Sapers?

When will the government stop channelling public funds into Conservative propaganda and, instead, use this money to make our communities safer?

[Intergovernmental Relations, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government has acquired the bad habit of never consulting the provinces. This is part and parcel of the Conservatives' narrow-mindedness. They do not listen to anyone—neither the opposition nor Canadians. The government listens only to the sound of its own voice. It imposes rather than consults.

The fact that the government did not bother to consult the provinces before unveiling its new plan for worker training is yet more evidence of this.

Why does the government have so much contempt for the provinces? Is this any way to manage a federation?

[National Water Strategy, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, water is our planet's most vital resource.

Humans can survive for about one month without food, but only three days without water. Without water, there is no agriculture to feed the rapidly expanding world population. Without water, we cannot contain the spread of disease through proper sanitation. Without sufficient water supplies, economic growth is stifled.

A wise Canadian water expert once said that if climate change is a shark, the shark's teeth are climate change's impact on water.

The reason we must do more to combat and adapt to climate change is that disequilibrium of the hydrologic cycle owing to climate change means that the earth cannot fully support our human, ecosystem and economic needs. Water science is one of the keys to overcoming future water challenges, whether from climate change, pollution or overconsumption.

In 2007 the House adopted my motion calling on the government to create a true national water strategy, complete with a vigorous water science component. World Water Day is an ideal starting point for launching a real effort to bring about such a strategy.

[The Environment, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, over half of the Canadians who were asked about the government's economic action plan advertising campaign thought that the ads were a partisan move and a waste of money.

Why not use even a fraction of the money wasted on self-promotion to save the Experimental Lakes Area program? When will the government stop funnelling taxpayers' money into Conservative propaganda and instead invest it in protecting our aquatic resources?

[Clarity Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am the member who has the honour to represent one of the most federalist ridings in Quebec, judging by the percentage of the vote garnered by the “no” camp during the two referenda on independence, in 1980 and 1995. I could not, therefore, stand idly by without contributing to this debate on a bill to dismantle the Clarity Act.

I also take this opportunity to salute my honourable Liberal colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and to thank and congratulate him. I remind members that he spearheaded with great skill, intelligence and courage the Jean Chrétien Liberal government's efforts to pass this important legislation in 2000.

I support the Clarity Act with a great deal of pride and conviction, not only because I am a staunch federalist. I also support it because my political philosophy is firmly anchored in liberalism. Liberalism rejects ideological solutions. The Liberal approach is based on well-informed political decisions. It is based on the notion that these decisions, which affect us at every level in our daily lives, must be rooted in fact and be the result of a rigorous thought process. In short, these decisions must be well informed and well reasoned, based on transparency and a clear and thorough understanding of the issues at play.

As with democracy itself, liberalism is rooted in intellectual honesty. All those who were intimately involved in the two referenda in Quebec know from experience how unclear and nebulous the questions were that Quebeckers had to vote on in these two popular consultations. In fact, the questions, which could be characterized as two-tiered, became a sort of inside joke in Quebec, if not elsewhere in Canada.

However, the joke is not at all funny to Quebeckers. The Clarity Act requires that the question in a referendum, if ever there were to be another referendum—and it is my heartfelt hope that we will never again be called upon to participate in such a process—be first and foremost clear and that it communicate to the voters the real meaning of the decision that they are being called upon make after due consideration.

Some who oppose the Clarity Act claim that the legislation constrains Quebec and is a straitjacket that is unworthy of a free and proud people. Some have even described it as a Soviet-style piece of legislation. That point of view perplexes me. It saddens me that there are people who are capable of so gravely misinterpreting the act.

In my opinion, the opposite is true. The Clarity Act—which was spearheaded by a proud Quebecker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, acting under the direction of a great Québécois Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, also a proud son of Quebec—gives Quebeckers the legislative tool, affirmed by no less than the Supreme Court, to hold to account any government in Quebec City that would dare to put us on an irreversible path to independence.

In fact, the Clarity Act safeguards for Quebeckers that most cherished of freedoms: the freedom to communicate to their government their true intentions regarding their future and to protect themselves against any attempt at manipulation on the part of politicians who have a hold on the reins of power, albeit on a temporary basis.

From this point of view, the Clarity Act is a yardstick. It is part of our Canadian system of democratic checks and balances, to borrow the jargon used by our neighbours to the south. The concept of checks and balances to protect the interests of the population is, moreover, one of the great principles at the heart of liberalism.

The Clarity Act requires, therefore, that any victory on the part of the “yes” camp in a referendum result from a clear question that leaves no one confused about the consequences of such an outcome, which I hope never comes to pass.

With regard to the threshold that would have to be met in a referendum to begin negotiating Quebec’s independence with the rest of Canada, the Liberal caucus fully supports, with the strongest and deepest conviction, the Clarity Act, based as it is on the Supreme Court opinion to the effect that the threshold must be much higher than the 50% plus one rule.

There are number of reasons for this condition. First, the 50% plus one rule is not 50% plus one in reality; voter turnout at the polls is never actually 100%. We know that if you snooze, you lose, but do you deserve to lose your country and your citizenship forever if illness or some other situation makes it impossible for you to exercise your right to vote?

In the event that the “yes” side won a slight victory, would there be the broad popular consensus needed to move forward with the difficult negotiations with the rest of Canada? On the day after this kind of result, will Quebec fall into a bitter political deadlock that would undermine economic stability?

The answer is obvious. Many political analysts and columnists, the so-called experts, claim that Quebeckers strongly disagree with the clarity bill. The facts, however, show something different.

The Clarity Act received Royal Assent in June 2000. In November 2000, during the federal election, the Liberals under Jean Chrétien easily won 36 seats in Quebec, with 44.2% of the vote as opposed to 39.9% for the Bloc Québécois, which, it must be said, campaigned against the Clarity Act.

If poll results from that time are anything to go by, a poll conducted by Quebec sociologist Maurice Pinard showed that 60% of Quebeckers, including 53% of sovereignists, supported or strongly supported the Clarity Act. A CROP poll of 4,992 people conducted the previous year about the principles on which the Supreme Court made its ruling—principles that would later be included in the clarity bill—showed that an even higher proportion of Quebeckers demanded that a threshold of at least 60% be met before the Quebec government could pursue sovereignty.

Finally, I cannot remember any demonstrations at that time that were organized by the sovereignist leaders against the Clarity Act. That is a remarkable indication that there was not a lot of opposition to the legislation. Overall, I am very disappointed that the NDP is so fixated on the 50% plus one rule, on a matter that is as serious as the future of Canada, one of the best countries in the world.

The NDP is not on the same page as my constituents regarding the Clarity Act. However, I continue to hope that my NDP colleagues will change their position, return to the fold and stand up for a united Canada.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is another fine member of the bar.

Based on my reading of the decision, the bill responds to the concerns and directives expressed in the decision. However, as I mentioned in my speech, I am a little curious as to why the government went further in some way than the court requested when it came to the applicability of section 184.4 to offences.

The court was quite clear in its decision that section 184.4 did not have to apply exclusively to the offences in section 183. Yet the government seems to have narrowed the scope of section 184.4 to only those offences. If the government really wants to prevent harm to persons or property, why does it not take the broader perspective that the court recommended?