May 18th
- MP
conFri 8:25 am | Ontario, Simcoe NorthThe hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
- MP
libFri 8:25 am | Quebec, BourassaMr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to shut off his tape of talking points. We are not talking about that. Even at the time, he said that there was no report and denied the existence of any reports. Well, today, there is a report.
We are talking about taking billions of dollars from the pockets of our seniors.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that access to government information was a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I quote, “...only where access is necessary to permit meaningful discussion on a matter of public importance...”. I think this is important enough.
Instead of playing games, when will the Conservatives table the report so that we can have a serious discussion? Is it because they are afraid that people will finally see that there was no problem with—
- MP
conFri 8:20 am | Manitoba, Saint BonifaceMr. Speaker, I would like to quote some Canadian economists in response to my colleague's question so that she might understand what Canadians think about this.
Avery Shenfeld, CIBC World Markets' chief economist, said budget 2012 “...makes sense in a world economy that is still not what we would like it to be. Relative to what anybody else is doing, we still come out with flying colours.”
Other economists have commented about this. We continue to push forward with a plan to create jobs, sustain the economy and make sure we have long-term prosperity.
- MPlibFri 8:20 am | Quebec, Bourassa
Let us focus, Mr. Speaker. Let us talk about OAS.
On Tuesday the Minister of Finance explained that he had no idea how much money the budget's OAS changes would save the government, “because we do not project beyond five years”.
Today we find out there was a report, and that report has existed since 2007. The Conservatives can project beyond five years, but in a typical Conservative fashion, they will not let anyone see it. Will they release the report so that parliamentarians and Canadians can have an informed discussion about the OAS changes?
- MP
ndpFri 8:15 am | British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley ValleyMr. Speaker, for months now Conservatives have refused to come clean about their plans to cut old age security. The finance minister claimed that the only projections he has seen have come from the media. Now we learn that the finance minister has been sitting on a report about the future costs of OAS for nearly five years, but refuses to share it with Canadians. Two elections, four budgets, one big cover-up.
Why are Canadians only now learning the truth?
May 17th
- MP
libMay 17, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto CentreMr. Speaker, the reality is that those new definitions are simply not in any information we have been given. They are in the musings of cabinet ministers opposite and we have had another philosophical discourse from the minister speaking on behalf of the government.
We still have this contradiction with respect to the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. The government members tell us there is a crisis and that it is going to be resolved in 2023, but they will not tell us how much they think they would be saving.
How can the government say there is a fiscal crisis with respect to the affordability of the plan and yet not have any idea as to what the return to the taxpayers is going to be?
May 16th
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 11:40 am | British Columbia, RichmondMr. Speaker, there will be no reductions to seniors' pensions.
The opposition parties are missing the point. This is not about savings. Our changes will put old age security on a sustainable path so it will be there when Canadians need it. Changes made will be gradual, beginning in 2023 and coming into full effect in 2029.
We are also providing Canadians with the option to defer OAS and collect later at a higher rate, if they wish.
- MP
libMay 16, 2012 11:40 am | Nova Scotia, Kings—HantsMr. Speaker, has the public service provided the Minister of Finance with an estimate of how many dollars the government will save by raising the OAS age from 65 to 67, yes or no?
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 11:30 am | Alberta, Calgary SouthwestMr. Speaker, as has been noted by all experts, old age security and guaranteed income supplement are by far the largest programs of the Government of Canada. These will continue to grow over time. In fact, they are projected to grow three times over the next generation, three times what they are today.
This is a program without a fund. That is why we are taking measures beginning in 2023 to make sure Canadians are prepared and that we have a system that is sustainable for future generations.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, the government has stated that there is an affordability issue with respect to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. That was what the Prime Minister said in Davos, and that has been said by the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Finance. The odd thing is that the government, neither the minister, nor the Prime Minister, can tell us how much money is going to be saved by the changes they are introducing in 2023.
If they cannot tell us how much money they are going to save, could they please explain to us why there is a crisis of affordability? It is a very simple question.
- MP
ndpMay 16, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, OutremontMr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there are no reductions to old age security in this budget. This pamphlet on the budget, which was one of the supplementary documents the government tabled in this House with the budget, gives a detailed explanation of the cuts the Conservatives want to make to Canadians' retirement income. Of course, this document is missing one vital piece of information—a number, which is also not found in the budget itself.
Exactly how much money do the Conservatives plan to take directly from pensioners?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, once again, there are no cuts to people's pensions. Canadian pensioners know that. On the contrary, next year, they will have the option of delaying their participation in the program, thereby increasing their benefits.
This government has been very clear: we are ensuring the long-term sustainability of this program for future generations.
May 15th
- MP
con
May 15, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, this budget does not make any cuts to old age security. We will be starting gradually in 2023 to change the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.
Starting next year, seniors will be able to collect more benefits if they so choose. If they want to, they can receive more benefits than they are receiving now.
- MP
ndpMay 15, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Parkdale—High ParkMr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources knew her government was taking between $10 billion and $12 billion out of Canadians' pensions but simply refused to fess up. All along we have heard misleading talking points that have long since been refuted by independent economists. The Conservatives simply do not want Canadians to learn about the real impact of their Trojan Horse budget.
Are the Conservatives really taking $10 billion away from Canadian seniors just to spend it on F-35s? Is that their plan?
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Parkdale—High Park
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government how much money it was planning to steal from seniors by increasing the age of eligibility for old age security benefits. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development once again dodged the question.
The Minister of Finance even told the media that he was unsure, that he had not planned that far ahead and that it might be $10 billion or $12 billion.
Is there a minister who can give us the actual amount that the Conservatives are going to cut from old age security?
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, until now the Conservatives had refused to come clean on how much they plan to cut from old age security. Finally yesterday, when asked whether the Conservative cuts would take about $10 billion out of the pockets of Canadian seniors, the Minister of Finance said, “I've heard that number. I've heard $12 billion also. Something in that area.” I guess it is not just the Minister of Defence who has arithmetic problems.
Would the Prime Minister refresh the memory of his Minister of Finance and table the full cost of his old age security cuts in the House?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 11:15 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to refresh the memory of the leader of the NDP. Of course, in this budget there are no reductions to old age security. Seniors of Canada know that.
We are looking at adjustments to the age of eligibility that will not begin to take effect until the year 2023. In the meantime, seniors will have the option of delaying receiving these benefits and receiving them at a higher rate if they choose to do so.
May 14th
- MP
con
May 14, 2012 11:40 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, as a government, our number one priority is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. We are protecting their security by ensuring that the old age security system is sustainable, not just for today's seniors, who will see no cuts to their pensions, but also for future generations.
We also have an obligation to protect those people, to protect our men and women in uniform who stand out there to defend Canadian values right around the world. We will ensure that they too have the resources they need and the proper equipment to do their job safety and securely, unlike what happened to them under the Liberals, who spent no money on them in the decade of darkness.
- MP
libMay 14, 2012 11:40 am | Ontario, York WestMr. Speaker, the U.S. forecasts that the F-35s will cost Canada over $40 billion. That is $25 billion more than the Conservatives claimed it would cost.
This same $25 billion could have funded the total old age pension of 160,000 low-income seniors for 25 years.
Why has the Conservative government chosen to sacrifice support for the lowest income seniors, while maintaining a “money is no object attitude” when it comes to the overruns on the F-35?
- MP
con
May 14, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, what we are not going to do is what the NDP is doing, and that is to fearmonger.
Let us look at the facts. The facts are that no one who is receiving OAS or GIS will see any cuts. There will be no cuts for those who are receiving it. There will be no change for anyone prior to 2023, at which time we will gradually increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.
OAS is paid out of the current year's tax funds. That is what we have to go by. That is why we have to make sure it is there for future generations.
- MP
con
May 14, 2012 11:20 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, what we are doing is ensuring that the old age security program has a future. There will be no changes for anyone before 2023. At that time, the age of eligibility will gradually rise from 65 to 67 years, in order to maintain the old age security program.
- MPndpMay 14, 2012 11:20 am | Ontario, Parkdale—High Park
Mr. Speaker, answers like that are just disrespectful to Canadians.
The OAS cuts are perhaps the single most important measure in the budget, and the government cannot even say how much it is going to cost. If I rephrase the question, maybe it will help the minister.
Conservatives keep claiming this is about sustainability and that is why they are hell-bent on cutting OAS. How does the minister know that her cuts will make OAS sustainable when she cannot even do the math to tell us how much these cuts will cost?
May 9th
- MP
con
May 09, 2012 11:55 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, we are making sure that the old age security system is safe for today's seniors and safe for future generations. To do that we have to make some changes, but those changes will not take effect until 2023. That is when they will start to be phased in.
We have to make sure that Canadians do have access to old age security. That is what we promised. That is what we are going to do for today's seniors and for future generations.
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 11:55 am | Ontario, York West
Mr. Speaker, when campaigning for the trust of Canadian seniors, the Prime Minister promised not to cut pensions. Then after tricking seniors with false promises, the Prime Minister smiled, shrugged, and reached deeply into their pockets. Seniors believed the Prime Minister when he said that their pensions would be safe with him.
Would someone over there, anyone, stand up and tell Canadians why the Conservatives have such a problem when it comes to telling the truth?
May 2nd
- MP
con
May 02, 2012 12:00 pm | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, let us be very clear. What the hon. member has just said is absolutely wrong. There are no reductions to seniors' pensions. Anyone who is currently collecting OAS and anyone who is 55 years old or older will not see any change. Any change that is going to happen will take place gradually and only start being introduced in 2023. We are doing this so that we will have old age security not only for today's seniors but also for future generations.
- MPlibMay 02, 2012 12:00 pm | Ontario, York West
Mr. Speaker, as each day passes it becomes more apparent that the Conservatives are a government stained by election fraud. Canadians now know that the government deceived them by promising not to cut the old age security pensions, and then, once the votes were cast, low-income seniors and baby boomers became the target.
Experts agree that the Conservative OAS cuts are not grounded in economic necessity but are instead Conservative choices. When did the Prime Minister know he was going to break his promise to seniors—before or after the election?
- MP
May 02, 2012 12:00 pm | Ontario, London—FanshaweMr. Speaker, Canadians are right to feel cheated by this Prime Minister. Exactly a year ago they voted, yet not once during the election did the Prime Minister say that a key priority for him would be to attack seniors' retirement income. Now we see why. Canadians are upset and are telling the Prime Minister directly in letters and emails that they are angry about changes to OAS. Still, the Conservative government ignores them. Will the government listen to Canadians and reverse course on its attack on OAS?
May 1st
- MP
con
May 01, 2012 11:35 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, the fact is that our government is going to ensure that there is an old age security program for future generations. That is exactly what we are doing. It is very important to understand that the population is aging. Right now, there are four workers contributing to the OAS for every retiree, but soon there will be only two. That is why we have to make changes.
- MPlibMay 01, 2012 11:35 am | Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants
Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, we asked the government how much money it was going to save as a result of the proposed change to the old age security program.
The government is refusing to give us that information and is saying that the chief actuary will give members the information after the budget implementation bill is passed and not before.
Why is the government hiding this information about old age security? Canadians have the right to know.
- MP
conMay 01, 2012 11:10 am | Ontario, Prince Edward—HastingsMr. Speaker, regrettably, when it comes to helping seniors, the NDP is all talk and no action.
Since 2006, we have taken concrete action to ensure that retirement income is sustainable and is there when Canadians need it, including introducing pension income splitting, introducing age credits, eliminating federal income tax for 38,000 lower-income seniors, increasing the GIS and the exemption, introducing the PRPP, enhancing the CPP, providing the largest GIS top-up in 25 years and introducing automatic renewal of the GIS.
Unfortunately, the NDP voted against all of these important measures.
Having taken action to assist seniors today, we need to ensure future generations can count on their retirement benefits when they need them the most. Our government is taking action to ensure sustainability of old age security for future generations.
Clearly, the NDP's lack of a plan for old age security is a threat to future Canadians' retirement savings.
Apr 30th
- MP
conApr 30, 2012 4:20 pm | Manitoba, Portage—LisgarMr. Speaker, that was a little extreme but thankfully Canadians have elected a strong, stable Conservative majority government because of our economic track record and because they trust us to take care of the economy of the country. After hearing that tirade, I think it is very obvious why.
The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Chief Actuary, the number of basic OAS recipients is expected to almost double over the next 20 years. According to the opposition, who will pay for that? I guess the opposition members think that money will appear out of thin air. This will change and this change will affect the ratio of workers to retirees increasing the burden on working Canadians to an unsustainable level.
Again, sticking one's head in the sand and denying the facts will not make them go away. Sadly, the opposition refuses to acknowledge the realities of our aging population and instead is playing political games.
In 2023, which is 11 years from now, we will gradually raise the age of OAS eligibility from 65 years of age to 67 years of age. We are making these changes to ensure the sustainability of the program for future generations of Canadians.
- MPconApr 30, 2012 4:20 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)
- MPApr 30, 2012 4:20 pm | Ontario, London—Fanshawe
Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with common sense. This is about undermining our social safety net. This is about pitting one generation against another. Yes, there will be more seniors. We have known that for 40 years. What has been done? Nothing. The Conservatives have undermined health care, affordable housing and now they are undermining the old age security system.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear. Yes, it will cost more but as we have an increased number of seniors we will also see an increase in our gross domestic product. Right now it costs 2.3% of GDP to support seniors. By 2030, it will be 3.3%, about the same as in the 1990s. By 2030, it will begin to decline right back down to where it is now, with a further decline to 1.4%.
This has nothing to do with supporting seniors of the future. It has everything to do with the fact that the government does not believe in being government, it does not believe in our social safety net and it does not believe in Canadians.
- MPconApr 30, 2012 4:15 pm | Manitoba, Portage—Lisgar
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member opposite, even in her own words, understands that the government needs to act in a responsible and forward way to secure the financial future of seniors. It is disappointing that the NDP appeared to either not understand the situation with OAS or refused to acknowledge it.
The fact is that Canadians are living longer, healthier lives than past generations and we will be relying on retirement income for longer periods of time. As David Dodge, who is the former governor of the Bank of Canada and deputy minister of finance said, we need to address the fiscal problem of old age security. He also said that denying it would not make the problem go away. He said that we are “15 years late in getting started...and, because labour participation rates will start to fall later this decade, we're up against the wall”. We need to ensure that our retirement income system can adjust to this trend and stay strong and sustainable for generations to come, and that changing demographics do not affect the affordability of the OAS program.
As I said earlier, the number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million to 9.3 million over the next 20 years. Consequently, the cost of the OAS program will increase from $36 billion per year in 2010 to $108 billion per year in 2030. OAS is the largest single program of the Government of Canada and it is funded 100% by annual tax revenues. This is a situation that must be addressed and it takes government leadership to do that. Again, it is disappointing that the NDP members do not acknowledge this.
Right now there are four working-age Canadians to every senior and by 2030 this will shrink to two. This is the issue. If we were going to ignore the coming demographic changes, we would simply be passing the buck to a future Parliament and to future generations, including our children. The choice would be to raise taxes to such an extent that they would cripple our economy or parliamentarians would be forced to do the unthinkable and examine the very sustainability of this program. We refuse to allow this to happen. We will make the common sense changes now, with a lengthy notice period, to ensure the sustainability of this program.
I will clarify once again that no current seniors will lose a penny because of these changes. The gradual increase to qualify for OAS from 65 years of age to 67 will begin in 2023 and finish by 2029. This is over 11 years away. The opposition should stop playing politics, stop fear-mongering and support our common sense changes to ensure the very sustainability of this very cherished social benefit.
- MPApr 30, 2012 4:10 pm | Ontario, London—Fanshawe
Mr. Speaker, I asked for this late show to follow up with the minister regarding the question I asked in the House about old age security. The minister quoted from a speech I made in which I said that we need a plan in place and we need the structures in place to deal with this dramatic shift in our country's demographics. The minister said that she agreed with me. If she does indeed agree, I would encourage her to continue to convince the government to reverse its decision to change the age of retirement from 65 to 67.
As I have already said, we need a plan in place to ensure there is adequate investment in the security of seniors, because there will indeed be more seniors. To prevent poverty and ensure dignity in retirement, we need to make investments and budgetary decisions now that will properly support our aging population.
Big business tax breaks, jails for unreported crimes and fighter jets costing billions do not meet the needs of Canadians as they look ahead to retirement. These are not the smart investments that will maintain our social safety net.
Old age security is sustainable. We can afford it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear time and time again that no changes are needed. Because of the government's wrong-headed decisions, it is seniors who will suffer in the future.
A report just released by the NDP found that OAS and GIS make up more than half the income for about 1.2 million seniors, or 28%. For females, it is about 38% who get more than half of their income from OAS and GIS. For 510,000 seniors, or 12% of Canada's seniors, OAS and GIS make up more than 75% of their income. These are all individuals with incomes under $20,000.
Females make up 80% of those for whom OAS and GIS make up 75% or more of income. Of those for whom OAS and GIS make up 75% or more of income, 89% do not have an employer pension. Right now about 34,000 persons who are 66 or 67 are currently poor; without their OAS and GIS, about 129,000, or 95,000 more, will be poor. Without OAS and GIS, the poverty rate for these seniors increases from about 6% to 25%. The loss of OAS and GIS for senior households who have someone aged 66 or 67 would increase their poverty rate to nearly 40% in Atlantic Canada and to 50% for single females.
Surveys of recent retirees suggest that many seniors are not in a position to simply work two more years in response to changes to old age security. This population is unable to work for two more years.
I would say that any plan to change OAS is absolutely unacceptable. The government needs to take poor seniors into account when it does its budgeting, but it has not done so. This country cannot afford to make changes to the OAS and leave more and more seniors living in poverty.
Apr 27th
- MP
con
Apr 27, 2012 8:30 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, I do wish that the NDP would stop th needless scare-mongering and fear-mongering for our seniors.
We have made it very clear that the changes to the OAS will not affect anyone who is currently collecting benefits and that anyone who is younger and not near retirement right now will have a lot of time to plan and prepare for it.
The key thing is that we need to ensure that this program is sustainable for future generations, which is exactly what we will do, and the Chief Actuary agrees with us.
Apr 26th
- MP
libApr 26, 2012 11:40 am | Quebec, Saint-Laurent—CartiervilleMr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources is contradicted by the OECD, which says, and I quote:
“There is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future” in Canada.
She is also contradicted by the Chief Actuary and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who predict that the cost of federal benefits to seniors relative to the economy will rise by only one percentage point by 2030 and then fall again.
Does the minister agree with those figures or not? Yes or no?
Apr 25th
- MPndpApr 25, 2012 11:15 am | Ontario, Parkdale—High Park
Mr. Speaker, since Nortel entered bankruptcy in 2009, its workers have seen their pension plans devastated, their disability income lost and their health benefits vanish.
Now, the predatory vulture investors who bought Nortel shares for 12¢ on the dollar are trying to claim the full dollar value with interest, draining funds needed to pay for the benefits of former Nortel employees.
How is this possible? It is because the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have refused to amend our bankruptcy laws to protect employees from predatory investors.
This situation is shameful. It is wrong to put these speculators chasing a quick buck ahead of the hard-working Nortel employees who spent a lifetime building the company.
Nortel pensioners want the government to amend the bankruptcy laws and move pensioners and disability recipients to the front of the line.
Is anyone over there listening? Will anyone from the government stand up and do the right thing for Nortel pensioners?
Apr 24th
- MP
con
Apr 24, 2012 11:20 am | Ontario, Haldimand—NorfolkMr. Speaker, we are joining leading countries around the world like England, Australia, the United States and others in recognizing that the population is aging, that we are going to have fewer working Canadians supporting a dramatic increase in the number of seniors who will be relying on OAS. The changes that we are proposing are going to ensure that the OAS system is there for seniors of future generations when they need it and when they expect it.
- MPndpApr 24, 2012 11:20 am | Ontario, Parkdale—High Park
Mr. Speaker, once again we have excuses and evasions, but they still refuse to give us the figures. The minister can dance around the facts all she likes, but Canadians deserve a real answer, Canadians who rely on OAS.
While the government claims this cut is necessary, most experts and economists disagree. Why is the government refusing to back up its claim with real evidence, and why will it not just tell us exactly how much it expects to save by raising the OAS age? It is a pretty simple question.
Apr 4th
- MPconApr 04, 2012 12:05 pm | British Columbia, Richmond
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burlington for the question. That is exactly what we are doing.
That is why, since 2006, we have introduced such measures as pension income splitting, billions in annual tax relief for seniors and the largest GIS increase in 25 years.
But we also need to ensure that future generations can count on sustainable retirement benefits when they need them. Changes made to OAS will be phased in between 2023 and 2029, giving Canadians up to 17 years to plan and adjust accordingly. No current recipients will be affected. That is the good message for all Canadians.
- MP
conApr 04, 2012 12:05 pm | Ontario, BurlingtonMr. Speaker, our government understands the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for people who have spent their lives building Canada through hard work. That is why in 2006, we have taken action to ensure that retirement income is sustainable and is there when Canadians need it.
Will the Minister of State for Seniors please update the House on the measures we are taking to ensure that Canadians' retirement income is sustainable today and tomorrow?
Apr 3rd
- MPlibApr 03, 2012 11:50 am | Ontario, York West
Mr. Speaker, after falsely promising to protect seniors' pensions, the Prime Minister has jammed his hands deep into the pockets of tomorrow's seniors. This is typical Conservative dishonesty of saying one thing and doing something completely different. Worse, he has done it at a time when he himself is preparing to cash in on a special taxpayer funded retirement bonus with nine times the OAS.
Could the minister please explain the hypocrisy in attacking OAS pensions but leaving the PM's golden parachute untouched?
Apr 2nd
- MP
ndpApr 02, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Hamilton East—Stoney CreekMr. Speaker, playing games with misleading numbers is not fooling anyone. Economists and experts agree with the NDP that attacking retirement security is not the answer. It is clear that even many middle-class families will not now be able to look forward to workplace pensions. The provinces and experts all agree with New Democrats that improving the CPP and QPP is the way to go. It is affordable and accessible to almost everyone.
Instead of slashing retirement security, why will the Conservatives not listen to sound advice and strengthen public pensions?
Mar 30th
- MP
libMar 30, 2012 8:40 am | Ontario, Markham—UnionvilleMr. Speaker, by changing the terms of old age security, the Minister of Finance is asking the most vulnerable seniors to give up $30,000 over two years. And yet no cuts were made to the Prime Minister's Office, ministers' offices or vanity ads.
Is the Conservative machine more important than low-income Canadians?
- MPconMar 30, 2012 8:30 am | Manitoba, Saint Boniface
Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to hear the misleading statements being made by the NDP.
When we look at federal support that has gone to our provinces and territories, we have increased federal support nearly 43% since we formed government. We are talking about historic levels, $60.9 billion.
Unlike the Liberals, we have not and will not slash transfers to the provinces or to people. I would encourage the NDP to set aside its high tax agenda and vote for this budget to protect Canadians' jobs and security.
- MP
conMar 30, 2012 8:25 am | Ontario, Ottawa West—NepeanMr. Speaker, these changes are part of a plan to balance the budget. These proposals will not come into effect until over 10 years from now, in 2023. We can make these decisions and give taxpayers plenty of notice. That is what all the other OECD countries—including Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, the United States and the U.K.—have done. All of those countries have done the same thing, because the program needs to be protected for future taxpayers.
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 8:20 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, on the question of the change in the old age security, the government never told the Canadian people that this was in its plans a year ago. If there was a demographic crisis, which the Conservatives are now pointing to, they would have known about it six months or a year ago. Why would the government introduce this change which is going to cost those who are eligible to receive OAS and GIS $30,000 for each person who qualifies? Why would the government do that, flying in the face of every major study which says Canada has—
Mar 29th
- MPndpMar 29, 2012 11:45 am | Ontario, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives just will not let the facts stand in the way of their decisions.
Fact: Experts such as the OECD and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have said OAS is sustainable. Fact: Rewriting OAS eligibility will download billions of dollars of costs onto the provinces.
How can Canadians trust a Prime Minister who is slashing their retirement security for no good reason? How can they trust a Prime Minister who hid from them his plan for OAS during the election campaign?
- MPMar 29, 2012 11:45 am | Ontario, London—Fanshawe
Mr. Speaker, it is not just today's seniors who worry about the Prime Minister's reckless OAS cuts. Young Canadians and middle-class families are left wondering if they can still afford to retire at 65. We know years of saving just is not enough anymore. Why? Because the Conservatives want to blow more money on failed fighter jets and a costly prisons agenda.
Why is the Prime Minister leaving tomorrow's seniors out in the cold? Why should seniors work two years longer to pay for the Conservatives' mismanagement?
1 2 3 4 5 6
