Rathika Sitsabaiesan

[Canada National Parks Act, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on Bill C-370, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada). This is a very interesting bill, as it proposes to change the name of a Canadian national park from “St. Lawrence Islands National Park” to “Thousand Islands National Park”.

I would first like to talk a bit about the background of this national park. The St. Lawrence Islands National Park is located in the Thousand Islands region of the St. Lawrence River. This is a particularly special region, as it connects the Canadian Shield from Algonquin Park to the Adirondack Mountains. The park consists of 21 islands plus many smaller islets, and is Canada's third-smallest national park, with a total area of 24.4 square kilometres.

The park is located within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve, which is known as one of the areas with the highest biodiversity in Canada. The Frontenac Arch Biosphere was designated by UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere program in November of 2002. It was designated as such for its unique flora and fauna, as the area contains a vast diversity of plant and animal life. There are many species at risk in the region, totalling 34 for both plants and animals. It is a beautiful region of our country and is one of the most diverse areas in Canada. It really is a phenomenal place to visit.

The region also has a vast history. Originally it was inhabited, like much of our beautiful nation, by aboriginal peoples; the first people of this area were actually the Iroquois, to be exact. The 17th century saw the arrival of many French explorers, fur traders and missionaries to the area as they followed the St. Lawrence River to seek their fortune in this new world. European settlers began moving into the area during the American Revolution. During the War of 1812, the park area was visited by both British and American warships. Actually, the hull of a British gunboat that was sunk in the area was raised in 1967; it was preserved and now resides in this park.

The park is also home to Cathcart Tower, one of the Martello towers that were built in the 1840s to defend the British from American invasion. The tower is also a UNESCO world heritage site.

In 1904 the area was established as St. Lawrence Islands National Park. It was the first national park established in Canada east of the Rocky Mountains. The history of this area, coupled with the fact that this park is the oldest national park east of the Rocky Mountains, makes it a remarkable part of our Canadian history and heritage, something I know all members of the House are interested in preserving and protecting.

My hon. colleague who introduced this bill sits as a member with me on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and he and the other members of his caucus who sit on that committee are constantly reiterating the importance of protecting our national heritage and history. With this in mind, I am very confused as to why he would want to change the name of such a historical and well-established national park. I feel that changing the name of this park is unnecessary and unwarranted. This park has been in existence for 108 years and is well established. Considering the cuts recently delivered to Parks Canada by the Conservative government, I also feel it is unfair for that same government to then legislate that Parks Canada spend some of its already tight budget on the costs associated with this unnecessary name change.

There are costs associated with changing signage, brochures, websites and generally rebranding the park. The rebranding of this park would be no small feat. The people in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River have been calling for years for the creation of Rouge national park; the throne speech last summer announced the government's intent to create the people's park, yet this past budget did nothing but re-announce the same promise. There was no funding committed to the creation of the park, no outline or timeframe announced for the establishment of the park, nothing other than the same promise.

Instead, Parks Canada was dealt a total funding cut of $29.2 million by 2015, 638 jobs were declared as surplus at Parks Canada and an additional 1,689 jobs will be affected in some way between now and 2015, either through shortened hours, being deemed seasonal or just cut altogether. Of these cuts, 396 are located right here in Ontario.

The government is asking Parks Canada to dedicate valuable time and resources to renaming and rebranding a park that is 108 years old. It seems slightly unfair and impractical. Meanwhile, we hear that it will take up to 10 years until the creation of Rouge national park gets under way, a promise that the government made now one year ago.

Moreover, the negligible and unproven economic benefit of the bill in relation to tourism would be vastly outweighed by the negative regional economic impacts of shutting down the Kingston Penitentiary and throwing more than 460 people out of work in the region.

Canadians in my riding and across the country are suffering. People are unemployed and underemployed. They are having trouble putting food on the table and making ends meet. Seniors, many of whom are unfortunately already living in poverty, are being forced to work two years longer. First nations across the country are living in extreme forms of poverty and sub-par conditions.

Public service jobs have been slashed by at least 19,200 positions. Provinces are losing $31 billion in health transfers owing to a unilateral funding structure change made by the government. Students and their families are being straddled with enormous student debt. Approximately 280,000 federal skilled worker immigrant applications from people who applied prior to February 27, 2008, are being closed and refunded. The eco-energy retrofit program, which has been widely popular in this country, serving 250,000 households, is being terminated. This will cause a loss of 70,000 person-hours of work and $520 million in federal tax revenue.

I could keep going on, because this list continues. The government does not have its priorities straight. It cannot cut funding to Parks Canada in the budget and then saddle it with the costs of making an unnecessary change to the name of an already well-established national park.

The government needs to start focusing on the things that matter to Canadians: job creation and access to the services they rely. This bill is yet one more example of how out of touch the government really is with Canadians.

[Canada National Parks Act, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering about the costs associated with the adoption of this bill. I wonder if the member has had his private member's bill costed out and, if so, what would be the cost?

It seems to me that changing the name of a 108-year-old national park would have a number of costs associated with it. As the member pointed out, the cost of re-branding is the marketing costs, such as signage, brochures, website redesign, et cetera.

Does the member have any idea what the costs associated with this re-branding would be?

[May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the parliamentary secretary and the government are getting some of those numbers. We heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the OAS is easily sustainable and is actually projected to decrease in cost relative to the size of the economy in the long run.

Furthermore, these changes are really coming at the cost to Canadian youth, as I mentioned in my previous question and as the parliamentary secretary mentioned himself. Youth are already struggling to find good jobs while carrying enormous amounts of student debt, meaning that they will make less money over their lifetimes than their parents and grandparents did. Now we are forcing them to work two years longer to pay for a crisis that the government is manufacturing.

The government is not helping our youth. It is further hurting them. It is cutting from the poor to give to the rich. Since coming into office, the government has given $72 billion in tax giveaways without a single promise or guarantee of a job.

Will the government commit to reversing the change to the age of eligibility for OAS?

[May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this winter we learned of the Conservative government's plan to raise the eligibility age for OAS from 65 to 67. This announcement goes against one of the Conservatives' own election promises, which was, “we will not cut transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces for essential things like health care, education, and pensions”.

Just for the record, that can be found on page 23 of the Conservative 2011 election platform.

The Prime Minister reiterated this promise on June 7, 2011, when he stood in this very House and said, “This government has been very clear. We will not cut pensions“.

Currently, there are nearly 5 million seniors collecting OAS and 1.7 million seniors collecting GIS, which means one in three Canadian seniors receive the GIS. What will this eligibility change mean to Canadian seniors? The lost income to Canadian seniors from this change will be significant. It will mean a loss of roughly $30,000 to the poorest seniors over these two years and roughly $13,000 over these two years for Canadians who receive only OAS.

That is a substantial loss. Unlike the CPP or private savings pillars, the OAS is a universal pension that does not depend on retirees' previous labour market participation or their participation in a registered pension plan or savings plan. In the words of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the OAS and GIS are the “basic building blocks of the public universal system”, and goes on to say, “which make up the anti-poverty part of the system”.

The OAS pays a maximum benefit of $540 per month. On an annual basis, the maximum OAS payment is $6,481. The average monthly payment in the fall of 2011 was $508.35.

High income seniors must pay back all or some of their OAS benefits due to a formula set by the government. Above an income of $69,562, the OAS begins to be clawed back. Above an income of $112,772, the OAS benefit is completely clawed back.

Because many senior women were not part of the labour force earlier in their lives, to today's seniors, the OAS and GIS are particularly important retirement instruments. Senior women are less likely than senior men to draw an income from the CPP, private pension plans, RRSPs or employment earnings. This makes universal programs like the OAS and GIS particularly important for our female seniors.

The median income for senior women is about two-thirds that of the median income for senior men, We need to be clear that the OAS is really an anti-poverty and an equity tool used to ensure that seniors can retire with dignity and have funds to support their retirement.

It is loud and clear. The government's priority is to spend billions of dollars on corporate tax giveaways to their friends while slashing the services that Canadians rely upon. That is wrong.

Will the government listen to the expert advice it was given by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the leader of the OECD pensions team and the head of the BMO Retirement Institute, among others.

The government should stop manufacturing a crisis to take away future benefits from Canadian seniors and keep old age security eligibility at age 65.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present petitions on behalf of many in the Greater Toronto Area and specifically the city of Toronto, who are calling upon the government to enact a Canada public transit strategy which would seek to provide permanent investment in public transit. I know that my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River are reliant upon surface-level buses only. They do not have any other access to public transit and would really like an investment to be made by the government to create a national public transit strategy. Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that within the next five years there will be an $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure needs.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, are the Conservatives trying to punish areas that did not vote for them by underfunding them? It really seems so. Cities are facing major funding gaps and the budget does nothing to address any of them.

Affordable housing? Not there. Public transit? Not there. Immigrant settlement services? Not there.

Most Canadians live in urban areas, but they are the ones who are going to be missing out.

When will the Conservatives accept their responsibilities to fund the services that Canadian cities rely upon?

[March 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the government can talk all it wants about the tax credits it has implemented, or the half measures with loan repayment assistance, or making loans more available for students and perhaps the infrastructure programs it has implemented that allows for more buildings to be built on campuses across the country, but at the end of the day, the government has not helped increase access to post-secondary education.

I have already established that a tax credit does not make tuition more affordable and many of these nice new buildings across the country are sitting vacant because there are not enough students and instructors to fill them. I have visited many campuses across the country where presidents and vice-presidents are telling me this is their problem.

We need accountability with regard to the funding that the federal government already provides each province and territory for education. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, we need to ensure that the money earmarked for post-secondary education is actually being spent on that.

Yesterday's Ontario budget, with no investment in post-secondary education, proves that point further.

That is why, on this side of the House, we presented a bill to create a post-secondary education act in Canada that would ensure—

[March 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for taking the time to be here tonight.

We are here tonight to discuss the cost of post-secondary education in Canada. Tuition fees across the country are at a record high, and it does not look like they will decrease any time soon. On average, Canadian students are graduating with a debt of over $25,000, and tuition fees are still rising at four times the rate of inflation.

In February, students across the country gathered and took to the streets, calling for action to reduce tuition fees and the ever-rising student debt load.

Education is the key to moving our economy forward. The government has done nothing to make university and college more affordable. Every dollar it claims to have spent has been clawed back by tuition fee hikes.

Rather than assisting the already cash-strapped provinces, the government is pushing a prisons agenda and downloading the costs of this program onto the provinces as well. Yet every time we bring up the ever-rising costs of tuition and the growing gap between those Canadians who have real access to post-secondary education and those who do not, the government talks about tax credits.

How do tax credits make tuition fees more affordable? How do tax credits make post-secondary education more accessible? The government loves tax credits. We see this all the time. We saw it with daycare and we saw it with children's arts and sports programs.

The government claims it is improving Canadians' access to these programs, but it really is not. All it is doing is making these programs cheaper for those who already have access, making them cheaper for those who already can afford these programs.

A tax credit does not help a single low income parent pay to go back to school to improve his or her skills. It does not help that parent access daycare while at school. Why, one might ask? It is because a tax credit does not give them access to the funds now, today, when the funds are needed to pay for their education. It just gives the parent a rebate in April when they file their taxes.

That is not true access. True access comes from reduced tuition fees so that all who wish to pursue post-secondary education can. True access comes from providing programs that will assist those Canadians improve their skills.

An educated population is key to our development and success as a nation. It is paramount to our international competitiveness. It is essential to our economic recovery and economic vitality. It is imperative to our social development.

Therefore, I will ask my question again. When will the government work with the cash-strapped provinces to make post-secondary education more affordable?

[Petitions, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today as the official opposition critic on post-secondary education. I presenting petitions that have been sent to me from the greater Ottawa region, Kingston and Sudbury.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to create a post-secondary education act, which would remove the federal funding for post-secondary education from the social transfer to the provinces and create a new transfer of funds dedicated solely to post-secondary education in our country to ensure that our post-secondary education system has importance given to good quality education that is publicly accessible and affordable to all who wish to have post-secondary education.

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our environment minister as well.

In his speech, the member mentioned the 400-plus people who came off the migrant vessel Sun Sea and called them a threat to our security and public safety. Those people risked their lives on a rickety cargo ship for two months to come to Canada's shores, holding their life in dear hand. Most of the people who came on that ship had UNHCR refugee cards. As the parliamentary secretary or the minster mentioned earlier, the Vietnamese boat people went back to get UNHCR refugee cards. Those people who came to our shores already had them. They had their identification taken away from them and then were told that they did not come with sufficient identification.

For the member to sing the tune that the minister sang before and say that people who arrive at Canada's borders by boat are considered irregular arrivals just because they are real asylum seekers who cannot afford an airplane ticket, is the member and the government calling people who do not have the ability to afford an airplane ticket bogus refugees?