Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2012

Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba over 7,000 seniors 65 years of age and older have to go to food banks. Quite often they have to make a difficult decision whether to buy prescription drugs or put food on the table.

At a time when there is this need for seniors to be provided the resources necessary to have a dignified lifestyle, we on this side of the House expect the government to recognize that and improve things such as the GIS. However, the government is bringing in fear in regard to taking away pension and benefits.

As opposed to being able to collect a pension when one is 65, the government is now suggesting it be moved to 67, thereby affecting hundreds of thousands workers today who are in that age group of 55 to 62. Thousands of workers from Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and other provinces will have to put off retirement for at least another two years.

Why has the government made such a low priority of our seniors? It feels that it can have all the resources to spend on increasing the number of politicians inside the House, or spending billions on jails, or billions on a jet that has been grounded by many other countries. What is with the priorities of the government?

Joe Daniel Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, our priorities are quite clear. We have done a significant amount for seniors. The level of poverty among seniors is one of the lowest in all of the countries in the west. There are great things that need to be done. We need to secure the future of the OAS system, which needs to be adapted. It cannot just stay as it was in the past. That is what is under review.

Clearly what is happening is the fearmongering is coming from the opposite side, not from our side.

Carol Hughes Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches all day and we hear the government side talking about fairness. If it is about fairness, what is so fair about giving $6 billion of corporate tax cuts to the biggest corporations, like banks and big oil companies? We know that big corporate tax cuts do not create a single job. What is fair about that? Would it not be fairer to ensure that we lift every senior out of poverty? Seniors are the ones who built our country.

Could my colleague really tell us about the government's plan to change this? Is it really on the side of the big corporate tax cuts to big banks and oil companies or is it on the side of the most vulnerable, which is our seniors?

I would ask him to answer this specific question. Could he guarantee the government will not increase the age from 65 to 67 for accessibility to OAS?

Brad Butt Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off by talking about tax cuts. Every economist will tell us that tax cuts do create jobs. The private sector creates jobs and jobs are what will secure Canada's economic future. Jobs allow more people to pay into a system through taxes that will, in turn, provide these benefits that Canadians count on. It is economics 101.

Francis Scarpaleggia Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invoke an old-fashioned concept. It is the concept of trust. This is a very important part of the relationship between the government and the governed. Eight months ago in an election campaign, we heard the Prime Minister promise that he would not touch transfers to individuals. Eight months later, on the road to a majority government, he had a conversion. Now he thinks he can do what he wants. What will that do to the trust, if there is any left, between this government and the people of Canada?

Brad Butt Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think the question of trust was answered on May 2. The Canadian people trusted us with a strong, stable, national majority government to deliver on the priorities for Canadians, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have not cut one red cent of any payment to any Canadian that deserves a payment on any issue. We have not cut one red cent to any province. In fact, we continue to significantly increase transfers to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. That is trust, and that is why we have maintained the trust of the Canadian people and why we will continue to maintain their trust.

Mark Warawa Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the track record of the Liberals. When they had an opportunity, and they knew that this issue would arise, they did nothing. It is the same as on the environment, they did nothing. Their solution now is to stop fixing buildings that need repair. Their solution is to let criminals out of prison, not to punish them. That makes no sense. The NDP's solution is to increase taxes on Canadians. That is not the solution.

Would the member share what this government's position is on helping seniors and answer why the opposition is opposed to helping seniors?

Brad Butt Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the proudest moment in my new term as a member of Parliament was the day this Parliament, at least our side of it, voted in favour of the largest increase in the guaranteed income supplement in 25 years. This government put low income seniors first for the first time in 25 years. I am proud to be a member of Parliament for a government that stands up for seniors.

Mike Sullivan York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I believe we are at a watershed moment in our new 41st Parliament. We have now experienced the first of what I am fearful, and we talk about fear a fair bit, will be one of the many hidden agenda items of the Conservative government.

There was never any discussion in any of the past election campaigns about the need to raise the age at which people receive old age security. If there is a problem, and we do not believe there is, there has never been any discussion among the Canadian people about this problem. Baby boomers, of which I am a member, have been around since I was born in 1952, which, coincidentally, was the year the old age security system actually started.

We all know we will retire and now the Conservatives have created a crisis in order to achieve a different agenda, in order to start rolling back the social safety net of Canada. This is the first step and it is a dangerous first step. We will see more of this in the future I am afraid.

As a wag in Halifax has said, the Prime Minister opened a can of worms with a Swiss army knife and once again the most vulnerable members of society must pay for the excesses of the government. Seniors are just one of a long list of members of our society who, according to the Prime Minister, must accept less from government and should not expect to keep a reasonable standard of living when they reach retirement.

This crisis has been created as a result of a temporary blip caused by baby boomers. It is temporary, so why not find a temporary fix, like perhaps rescinding the corporate tax cuts that have taken so much out of the government treasury?

The government came to office with an enormous structural surplus and it is gone. Not only is it gone but, in their term in office, the Conservatives have created the biggest deficit ever in Canadian history. Now they are saying that the cupboard is bare and that seniors will need e to pay for it. That is not what the NDP believes. We do not believe in going backward. We believe in moving Canada forward, and this is moving backward.

The Prime Minister and the government also tell us not to worry because the Canada pension plan is solvent and that it will not be touched. What they have forgotten to tell us is that Canada pension is inexorably intertwined with the old age security system, as are all the pension plans in this country, private and public. They all have what is called a normal retirement date and they all require that there be some other form of assistance for the poorest of Canadians and the middle class of Canadians, that being old age security at age 65.

Once we step into the 67 world, as the Prime Minister appears willing to do, all of those systems must move to age 67. It will not just be old age security, because that would leave an enormous gap between what all of the other pension, retirement and income systems in Canada already have. All pension plans are based on a normal retirement age and almost, without exception, they are all at age 65, not 66 or 67. Moving away from that would put enormous pressure on other plans to move in lockstep.

Many employees have planned their careers around retirement at age 65. For those whose total pension income pays less than $16,000, they count on the guaranteed income supplement to top-up their pension to a reasonable amount. For seniors who have only the old age security to count on, most of them women, it is the difference between abject poverty and living at the poverty line. However, the government is telling them to suck it up buttercup, that they should either continue working past retirement age or go on welfare for the next two years.

We do not agree that we should drag this country backward when we have worked so hard to protect the systems and security measures that are in place now.

What if those individuals were not able work another two years, as the Prime Minister suggests? Both the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick allow forced retirement at age 65. All provinces allow forced retirement in jobs that require large physical or safety requirements, such as firefighters. Employers can fire people for being too old. How would people be able to work past the age of 65 when several levels of government suggest that they can be fired at age 65? Many employers work very hard to discourage people from working past 65.

I am aware of that from my career as a union rep. As soon as the Province of Ontario eliminated forced retirement at age 65, employers went through hoops to make it difficult for people to stay on past the age of 65. They changed benefit plans, income plans and tried to make people work for less, all to try to force them to leave or quit at age 65. Why? Because the kid coming out of school will work for a lot less. That is the kind of Canada the Conservatives are building.

The Prime Minister's proposal largely affects lower and middle income Canadians. This does not bother the famous 1%. They have other income beyond CPP and OAS. Their OAS is clawed back and they never qualify for GIS, so they would not be affected by the Prime Minister's proposals.

As for the guaranteed income supplement, it is not paid to those who already have reasonable pensions. The GIS goes to the 1.7 million seniors today who otherwise would live in abject poverty. That is one in three seniors in Canada. The fastest and easiest way to cut government spending on items like the GIS is to raise the minimum pensions. If Canada pension goes up, the GIS bill goes down. There is no need to raise the retirement age to 67 if the Canada pension plan can pick up the slack and, surprise, surprise, there would be no cost to the treasury.

There are significant impacts on the provinces that no one is talking about. Welfare stops at age 65. What happens between ages 65 and 67? Provincial long-term disability is not paid past age 65. Provincial workers' compensation and WSIB is not paid past age 65. This unilateral proposal by the Prime Minister to raise the retirement age to 67 would create significant holes in provincial social assistance programs, costing millions of dollars.

Further, most private pension plans take into account OAS payments. They are interdependent. Many of them have what they call the level income option where individuals can opt for a different retirement age based on the knowledge that they will get OAS. All of those deals would be gone.

Those holes in the private sector plans would create significant costs for employers and force extra costs on the provinces. All private benefit plans depend on retirement at age 65. Private long-term disability plans all end at age 65. There would be enormous costs to employers to do this.

Has anybody talked about the domino effect of what you are proposing? What you are proposing would actually cause an enormous cascade of costs on employers, on governments and on individuals. It is not just future seniors. I know you are musing, “This is only those younger people who don't really think about retirement right now. Don't worry, we won't touch it for several years yet”.

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

If I could just remind the member that he ought to be addressing the Chair as opposed to his colleagues. Secondly, I would remind him that he has one minute remaining.

Mike Sullivan York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, the other effect of this is that it would discriminate against women. Women make roughly 70% of the earnings of men in this country and, therefore, 70% of their pension. Therefore, women, by far, make up the majority of people who are reliant more so than men on OAS and GIS. What would happen to those women if the age were moved to 67? More women would be in poverty and would need to work another two years.

We like to think that we would want to move Canada forward and moving Canada forward does not mean moving the age to 67. Moving Canada forward means protecting what we have; strengthening the Canada pension system, which would, in turn, cause less of a demand on GIS; making pensions more secure against bankruptcies; and maintaining and improving the GIS, not just the little amount the Conservatives talked about in their budget but enough to take every senior out of poverty. That is what we need and that is what the government ought to be doing.

Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, pensions are a way of transferring income generated by people working today to those who have retired. It is a matter of intergenerational responsibility.

We hear from the government that existing seniors and those nearing retirement would not be affected. Who would be affected? The need to act is explained away by an aging population and, hence, there is a crisis, according to the government, although the experts, even the government's own expert, say there is no crisis.

If an aging population is a problem, why does the government fail to take action to address the health concerns of an aging population, for example, the rising costs of dementia, from $15 billion today to $153 billion in just 30 years, not to mention the human costs? Why is there a double standard?

Mike Sullivan York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question because the government does not appear to be focused on real issues. This is a made-up issue in order to throw a monkey wrench into our retirement system. However, there are real issues like health care, whose costs will rise and for which there need to be smarter ways of dealing with it. We need to have better investment in home care. We need to have better investment in systems that will keep people out of hospitals and keep our population healthy.

That is not what the government is about: it is about cutting things, and we are opposed to that.