Irene Mathyssen

[Employment Insurance, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who lose their jobs through no fault of their own expect the EI system to help, because that is what it is supposed to do, but even with so many Canadians out of work, 1.3 million at last count, access to EI benefits is at historic lows. Two-thirds of unemployed Canadians are denied support.

When so many are struggling to make ends meet, how can the Conservatives justify giving handouts to the wealthy few ahead of helping those who really need it?

[Veterans Affairs, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Duchess of Kent Legion is an important part of my community for cadets, wounded and homeless warriors, seniors, and veterans. However, it has faced tough times, and earlier this month, the members sold the building. The Legion is proposing that the officers' mess at Wolseley Barracks, which is slated for demolition, be sold to the Duchess so that it can be converted into a new home for the Legion.

Will the Minister of National Defence consider the Legion's proposal so that it can continue to provide support and services for veterans in London?

[VIA Rail Canada Act, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to support Bill C-640, the work of my colleague, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He follows in a great tradition of rail advocacy by the NDP. I would be remiss if I neglected to mention Bill Blaikie, who along with his many principled contributions to the House as the member for Elmwood—Transcona and deputy speaker was and remains a fierce defender and advocate of preserving, diversifying, and expanding rail infrastructure in our great country.

Bill C-640 is an effort to turn the tide on the steady erosion of rail travel that began with the Liberals' deregulation of the industry and the privatization of the Canadian National Railway system in 1995.

Bill C-640 seeks to prevent VIA from cancelling routes and passenger service without consulting with Canadians and with Parliament. Canadians have the right to the highest levels of service, protection, and accessibility of travel that can be provided. Instead we have seen the erosion of infrastructure due to neglect and corporate offloading and the cancellation of services across the country.

Canada has a growing population comprising families with children, seniors, and citizens who need to travel and are very conscious of the environmental legacy we are creating for future generations.

With proper stewardship and a visionary plan, there is real potential to revive our once thriving rail travel industry. However, that kind of vision requires a federal government focused on national stewardship rather than what both Liberal and Conservative governments did when they sold off national interests and pandered to those who bankroll their campaigns. Even worse, this current Conservative government, as did previous Liberal governments, refuses to acknowledge that the economic and environmental benefits of a truly enhanced, integrated, accessible, and sustainable rail transit system far outweigh and outlive short-term political gain. It fails to understand that everyone, from the youngest Canadian to the seasoned commuter, benefits from the kind of forward thinking that ensures that rail travel is part of our future.

This reality is not lost on the citizens of London and southwestern Ontario. These are the Canadians who suffer from what is described in the Network Southwest action plan as a mobility gap. VIA Rail needs substantial modernization and service improvements to prevent a further decline in ridership. Investment and modernization would permit the enhancement and strengthening of rail service for future generations.

We have to be forward thinking. Rail travel is cost-effective in terms of the pocketbook and the environment. While high-speed rail is a longer-term vision, high-performance rail is able to operate on many existing main and secondary routes. High-performance rail is part of an interconnected alternative public transit system, and it provides infrastructure to feed future high-speed rail.

The Network Southwest report, written by Greg Gormick in March 2015, outlines the need for VIA Rail services to be upgraded to HPR standards as one of its three building blocks. The plan also includes feeder bus services to provide transit between trains and communities off the rail lines and mobility hubs to connect all transportation modes, including local traffic.

All of this can be done efficiently and seamlessly. There are already several successful models of rail-based regional public transport solutions in the U.S. One of the characteristics they all share is the joint support of federal and state governments. A joint approach by federal and provincial governments in Canada could bring about the mobility improvements needed in regions like southwestern Ontario, and such a transit solution could become a template for other parts of Canada.

A successful precedent for innovation happened after the federal Liberal government slashed half the rail passenger service in Canada in the1990s. In response to that void, the Ontario NDP government partnered with VIA and restored a London-Toronto train that was threatened by the axe. This restored service was a crucial link that the provincial government knew must be saved. It was a matter of determination and foresight.

Bill C-640 would allow Canadians and this Parliament to evaluate cases where VIA Rail plans to eliminate a required route and would call on Parliament to study, debate, and then vote on the recommendations in the minister's report, thus giving Parliament the final decision. Interestingly, that is what our system is supposed to do: ensure that Parliament, and not the party in power, has a role in vital national decisions.

VIA serves three well-populated corridors in southwestern Ontario, and there are many factors in favour of improving these routes. First of all, they service one of the highest population densities in Canada. They can be utilized by significant numbers of students in numerous colleges and universities, students who do not have access to cars.

These routes bring visitors to tourist and cultural attractions, including the Stratford Shakespeare Festival. They have close proximity to Toronto, which is a destination and an economic hub. They decrease often difficult travel on Highway 401 and the QEW. Both those highways can be very hazardous at any time of year.

I have had occasion to meet with numerous community organizations in London and area that rely on VIA Rail for their transportation. Groups like the University of Western Ontario Student Council and Fanshawe Student Union have a keen interest. A significant segment of the London workforce relies on VIA Rail to commute to the GTA. The intercommunity travel between London, Sarnia, Windsor and Toronto is vital to all of our local economies.

The London Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in the community know that without dependable VIA Rail service, many community jobs would be lost. Bill C-640 provides effective measures to ensure that that does not happen.

As the London Free Press reported on April 11, new rail investment would create 30 to 36 new jobs and $3 million to $4 million in economic spinoffs. Bus network improvements would add to those regional economic benefits as well. The cost associated with Network Southwest's five-year plan is equivalent to the cost of building just one kilometre of subway in Toronto and the benefits are huge. American studies indicate that for each $1 million invested in rail, 30 jobs are created and GDP increases threefold.

When we consider the drain on the Canadian economy associated with motor vehicle accidents and injuries which cost us $22 billion per year, these benefits are impossible to ignore.

Rail Advocacy in Lambton says of Bill C-640 that the concept of a national rail policy is, in their view, a necessary step in supporting a sustainable passenger rail system for all Canadians. It says that without this legislation, Via Rail and Canada's passenger rail system is doomed to die a slow death, with no hope of resurrection, unless immediate restorative action is initiated. It says that it needs an affordable, frequent, marketable passenger rail service that ensures no passenger is ever left behind. It also says that this legislation is the first step in a long-overdue process that will make VIA Rail a viable, productive, successful national transportation agency.

Mike from London, Ontario, has written to remind me that next year will be the 160th anniversary of the London and Port Stanley Railway, the third oldest in Canada, founded in 1856. Included in all the other travellers who rode that line were big band musicians and fans headed to Port Stanley's famous Stork Club. Reconnecting London and St. Thomas to Port Stanley's beaches and shops again would be a boost to our local economy.

I also want to mention the work that is being undertaken by the City of London. I am encouraged by London's Shift initiative that presents a bold and important vision for transportation in our city. It focuses on rapid transit as part of the transportation system that will help our city grow and prosper.

The Shift proposal calls for London to conduct a public environmental assessment that allows citizen input in planning and designing the network. In addition, it will assess the need for rapid transit, and how rapid transit can alleviate such problems as congestion, overcrowded buses and the high cost of driving. The assessment will determine which streets are suitable for rapid transit and how they can be designed to improve mobility for everyone, and determine the form or forms of rapid transit that should be used. Shift is a City of London initiative that has great potential.

The integration and coordination of VIA Rail routes and services is vital to moving the population of London in, through and around the community. Bill C-640 lays the framework for that progress to happen.

I am very happy to stand in support of Bill C-640. It is good for the people of London and southwestern Ontario. It is good for all of Canada.

[Employment, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Mario Martinez Diaz came to Canada as a temporary foreign worker. His employer repeatedly broke the contract Diaz had signed before coming, including changing the job description and the wage, but has his employer had his labour market opinion revoked? No. Has his employer been put on the blacklist? No. So much for getting tough on abuse of the program.

Why do the Conservatives always promise reforms and then fall into the same old patterns of neglect when the media spotlight fades?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers are worried because avian flu has been confirmed on a second farm in Oxford County, and the quarantine now stretches into the Waterloo Region.

This is the second major outbreak of bird flu in Canada in the last six months at a time when Conservative cuts have decimated the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It has lost 300 employees while 54 positions in animal health remain unfilled.

What is the government's plan to contain the outbreak and protect the poultry industry? Will the Conservatives reverse their destructive cuts to CFIA?

[Taxation, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, not only are Canadians burdened with a budget that only helps the wealthiest few, they have a government that cannot even get the facts straight on its own budget.

The member for Mississauga South does not know that the continency fund is being used to balance the books, and the Minister of the Environment bizarrely claims that no budget has done more for climate change, even though climate change is not mentioned once.

An extra two and a half months should have been plenty of time for the Conservatives to prepare more than a muddy document even they do not believe. On top of this, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are balancing the books on the backs of the next generation. With such a poor and confused sales job, it is almost understandable that the Liberals keep flip-flopping.

New Democrats are the only party that stands consistently behind our principled policies, and principled policies are what Canadians can expect in our 2016 budget.

[Seniors, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their government to listen and to participate in dialogue. Today the Conservatives did not even bother to send anyone to a major seniors event, and last week, the Conference Board of Canada warned that failure to address the demographic boom of seniors will compromise health care services. They also joined a growing list of organizations calling for a coordinated seniors strategy.

Will the Conservatives finally listen to the experts? Will there be a seniors strategy in tomorrow's budget?

[Veterans Affairs, March 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the government's utter disregard for veterans continues to take its toll. Over the past three years, the Conservatives have cut the number of case managers for veterans by 20%. Those who are left are struggling to deal with unmanageable caseloads. This has a major impact on the quality of care and services that veterans receive.

Veterans and members of Parliament warned that this would be the outcome of Conservative cuts. Why did the Conservatives fail to listen? When will they make amends?

[Seniors, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we all know about their unfair and ineffective plans. Conservatives think that creating the environment for every Canadian senior to retire with dignity costs too much. Why can we not just admit the truth? OAS, GIS and CPP are entirely sustainable and they can be relied upon to carry us forward.

Doubling the CPP would go a long way to addressing the needs of all Canadians for retirement security, without lining the pockets of the banks in service and administration fees. A universal pharmacare program would save the government money in the long run.

All of these measures constitute the tools we have at our fingertips to ensure that no Canadian senior need live in poverty. Instead, the Conservatives have raised the age of eligibility for OAS by two years and virtually guaranteed an increase in the number of future seniors living in poverty. Why are the Conservatives ignoring the facts and leaving Canadian seniors without hope?

[Seniors, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we desperately need a plan to deal with Canada's aging population. There needs to be practical and effective planning for the nearly 10 million people who will be seniors in the next 25 years.

The Canadian Medical Association is calling for a comprehensive seniors strategy because it understands the social determinants of health and future needs. Being able to house oneself properly and feed oneself adequately makes one a healthier person, with fewer visits to the emergency room, fewer and shorter hospital stays, and less medication prescribed. In short, living in a dignified situation promotes health and reduces health costs for all of us in the long run.

When the current government enacts measures that increase the number of seniors living in poverty, it creates an increased burden on the health care and support system. It is the downloading of a federal responsibility to provinces, communities, and families. There is absolutely no excuse to leave one Canadian senior living in poverty, and furthermore, the achievable alternative just makes good fiscal sense. We have the responsibility to do something about seniors' poverty and we cannot afford not to.

As I already said, the number of seniors in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million in 2005 to 9.8 million in 2036. With so many more seniors retiring in the years to come, we need to put measures in place right now to avoid dramatic increases in the rate of seniors living in poverty in the future.

A study released by Laval University in September shows that the change imposed by the Conservatives that raises the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 years adversely affects those who can least afford it. It will increase the percentage of seniors who live in poverty from 6% now to 17%. The study goes on to point out that any revenues the government would realize with the delayed retirement age could be achieved by alternate reforms without having such large impacts on seniors at the lowest income range. The current government is clearly not preparing for the increased number of seniors in Canada's future, let alone ensuring that no Canadian senior today need live in poverty.

In addition to the research done by Laval University, we have just recently heard from researchers at the University of British Columbia, who have demonstrated that a universal pharmacare plan, something that every developed country in the world with a medicare plan already has, would actually save billions of dollars. Such a plan would benefit every Canadian, especially those living in poverty, and it certainly would ensure that no Canadian senior need live in poverty as well.

A national pharmacare plan should be part of an effective strategy on aging, as should a national housing strategy that allows seniors to stay in their own homes as long as possible, as should a truly universal, affordable, and accessible health care system that addresses the particular needs of an aging population.

The current government's solution to seniors' poverty and seniors' access to resources is to offer tax breaks to those who do not need them and to trumpet ineffective strategies like the pooled registered pension plan. We have heard all about how much revenue the government will lose with tax-free savings accounts, another luxury that a very small proportion of Canadians will be able to receive. Interestingly, when they were first elected, the Conservatives increased the GIS. They have forgotten all about this.

The New Democrats have a plan that would work, and when we are in government, we will implement it.