Debates of Feb. 8th, 2012

Public Safety

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that information from torture is unreliable. Has the government learned nothing from the Maher Arar affair?

We know there are countries and agencies that use torture as a matter of course but, instead of moving to stop this, the government turns a blind eye. That is what it really means when the Minister of Public Safety directs CSIS to use information extracted through torture.

Torture will continue if the information keeps being used.

Will the minister acknowledge, as his predecessor did as public safety minister, that torture is morally wrong and information extracted through torture is unreliable?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot be any clearer. Our government does not condone torture and certainly does not engage in torture.

However, when we have information that Canadian lives are at risk we will act without delay. Canadians expect no less. The security of Canadians is paramount. We will use information that comes to our attention that may save the lives of Canadians, and we will do it without dispatch.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, torture is prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada and the United Nations Convention against Torture, to which we are a signatory.

The minister claims not to condone torture and then, however, he opens the door wide for other countries to use torture and for us to use that information.

In 2009 the Conservative public safety minister said, “If there's any indication...that torture may have been used, that information is discounted”.

Why has the government flip-flopped and thrown open the doors to use immoral and unreliable information extracted through torture?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the member is someone who, if he knew there was a plane with some of his constituents on it, men women and children, and he obtained information which came from a questionable source, he would do nothing. That is the position of the NDP. The NDP would not take the appropriate action to ensure that the lives of Canadians were protected.

That is why those members are over there. They are not fit to be trusted with the security of Canadians.

Pensions

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Reform wing we worry about, it is the whole bloody bird over there that is the problem. That is the issue we face.

Let me turn my attention to the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer today stated very clearly that there is no issue with respect to the fiscal sustainability of the federal pension plan in Canada, none whatsoever. Old age security is not at risk. Old age security is not in doubt for fiscal reasons.

The only risk to old age security is the Government of Canada and the Reform-Alliance reactionary agenda over there.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich coming from that member to be on a high horse about political affiliations given his past.

Let us be clear. There is not a single recipient of old age security today who is going to lose a red cent, and that would be a Liberal red cent, as a result of any future contemplated changes.

Let us contemplate the words of another individual:

Everybody recognizes that demographic changes in our society mean that we will have to make changes to ensure that our pension system remains sustainable for future generations of Canadians.

Who said that? His predecessor, Jean Chrétien.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, better a high horse than a helicopter.

We are saying to the minister as clearly as we can that it is precisely because the Liberal government of the day recognized a problem with respect to the Canada pension plan that it changed the plan, amended the plan, fixed the plan, added to the plan, added contributions to the plan, and fixed it for Canadians. That is what the Liberal Party did.

The difference is that what the government is now talking about, what the Prime Minister flew over to his alpine perch to talk about, was not the Canada pension plan; it had to do with hurting poor people with respect to old age security.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what nonsense and rhetoric. The member would know about helicopter rides. He took one to his cottage when he was premier of Ontario.

Our government is committed to protecting the OAS for our current seniors and future seniors.

Let me refer to another document the member might be familiar with, although he was in another party at the time:

[T]he future affordability of our public pension programs is challenged by major demographic and economic changes that have occurred since these programs were developed in the 1960s.

What is the source of that statement? The 1996 Liberal budget.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not accept the report released by this official representative of Parliament, which clearly states that there is no problem with respect to the future of public pensions in Canada, except the Conservative Party's position. It is the Conservative Party that is attacking poor people. It is the Conservative Party that is abandoning the poor and the provinces, and it is the Conservative Party that is trying to change a system that has been working for half a century. The government must change its mind. Now is the time for it to do so.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to ensure that the old age pension will be sustainable and affordable in the long term. There are, in fact, other independent reports to which we can refer--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. minister has the floor.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is from a February 2012 publication by the Macdonald Laurier Institute:

There can be little doubt that Canada, like all industrialized countries, may soon face the full burden of an aging society. Canada will either proactively implement solutions to this coming problem or react, probably in crisis, when the full weight of the costs of an aging society fully confront our society.

There is lots of information that rebuts the position of the member opposite.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us try again.

In 2004 the Liberals wanted to raise the OAS eligibility to 67 years, and guess who ridiculed them? The Conservatives. They railed that the Liberals wanted to have seniors work two more years to get less out of their pension. Now the Conservative government is proposing exactly the same option.

It is time for the minister to tell seniors the truth. Is the government planning to raise the OAS eligibility to 67, yes or no?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, what we are going to do is take care of seniors, whether they are current retirees or future ones.

I am glad that at least one member of the NDP agrees that something needs to be done. I quote:

Issues facing seniors are only going to intensify as more Canadians reach their senior years. Action now is critical--we need a plan in place, we need the structures in place to deal with this dramatic shift in our country's demographics.

Who said that? The NDP member for London—Fanshawe.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 2 the human resources minister stood in this place and stated that there was a revenue shortfall due to boomers retiring. However, today the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report which disputes that claim. The PBO in his report confirms what we already know, that there is no crisis of sustainability with respect to old age security.

The minister has upset Canadian seniors across Canada from coast to coast for no good reason. Why does the government always want to manufacture a crisis where there is none?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, our government's aim is to prevent a crisis, the kind of crisis that we have seen hit in Europe, where government expenditures on pensions climb as high as 14% or 15% of GDP. That is almost equivalent to our entire government spending on all of our programs combined. We are trying to prevent that so we can make sure that programs are affordable for current Canadians who are retired and those approaching retirement and indeed for future generations. That is the responsible thing to do. It is long term and I realize that, but we have to take a look at the long term. That is our responsibility.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the government has to cut social programs. This is not true. There are other options. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and experts have been clear: the program is viable in the long term. People are planning for retirement now, whether they are 59 or 29. The younger generation of workers is concerned, and they have the right to plan their retirement like everyone else. People need this information.

Can the minister tell us whether or not the government will increase the retirement age from 65 to 67?

[Some hon. members]

Yes or no?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, what we are going to do is ensure the viability of the old age security program both now and in the long term because we have to respect the rights of our seniors.

It is very important to listen to the other experts who are saying that, if nothing is done now, this program will well and truly be in crisis.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it disgusts me that the government is making cuts like these on the backs of future generations. It is unacceptable. By threatening to change the old age security program as it is currently doing, the government is clearly pitting one generation against the other. In fact, the government is mortgaging the future of our future generations. That is what is really happening.

What will happen to young workers when they reach retirement? We do not know yet; that is for certain.

Will the government increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 or not?

[Some hon. members]

Yes or no?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, if the government were to take the NDP's advice and do nothing now, the young workers of today would not get anything from the old age security program. That is for certain. We want to prevent this from happening. That is why we are taking action now to ensure that the old age security system is viable for today's seniors and for future generations.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I warned the government that there was a crisis, it did not listen. It has no plan--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!