Bob Rae

[Pensions, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to tell the Prime Minister directly, but it is not clear to us, on this side of the House, that he will be in power after 2015. It is not clear that this will be the case. Thus, he must acknowledge that he is a politician just like any other. I would even call him the interim Prime Minister, in office only until 2015.

Does he believe that he controls the fate of all pensions until 2030, 2040 or 2050? He is not Louis XVI.

[Pensions, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, these rabbit tracks do not bother me at all. Really, it is irrelevant.

Why would the Prime Minister not have shared this question with the Canadian people in an election? He had a chance to go in an election, he says that he was looking for a mandate, why did he not have a mandate—

[Pensions, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain this, now that two spokesmen, the Minister of Finance and parliamentary secretary, have both confirmed today that the budget will in fact contain measures that will deal with the future costs of pensions in Canada.

Could the Prime Minister tell us, in light of his first answer today, if he was aware that there was such a demographic challenge? It did not just arise yesterday. It did not arise last week. It did not even arise just before he went to Davos. People have known about this for years.

Why did the Prime Minister not deal with this question? Why did—

[Pensions, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is basically saying, “We are going to protect the system by cutting access to it”. That is what he is saying. He cannot deny it.

He is not only dumping on the most vulnerable senior citizens, including women who are going to be qualifying for old age security who get their old age pensions, he is also dumping on the provinces, dumping on municipalities, creating a cascade of injustice because of a totally manufactured crisis on his side. It is a well known neo-conservative tactic that the Prime Minister is engaging in. I can tell him we are not going to put up with it and neither are the Canadian people. They will not accept it.

[Pensions, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position seems to be, “We want to protect old age security and that is why we are cutting it”. That is the logic of what the Conservatives are saying. It is preposterous.

The Prime Minister, I am sure, understands that when qualifying for old age security at 65, that then qualifies people for the guaranteed income supplement. That then qualifies people for a provincial drug card, which then provides them access to municipal benefits and other provincial benefits. It also affects every private sector pension arrangement or retirement arrangement.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that in speculating about raising the age past 65 to 66 and 67, he is causing great difficulty for the most vulnerable citizens?

[Pensions, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is low-income seniors who qualify for old age security benefits. Second, people have to have access to old age security in order to have access to the guaranteed income supplement. Third, seniors need to have access to the guaranteed income supplement in order to have access to provincial and municipal benefits.

Does the Prime Minister truly understand the problem that he is creating for low-income Canadians by changing old age security?

[Pensions, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Prime Minister.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he was aware of the demographic problem and whether he knew that, in the future, he was going to cut pensions and raise the retirement age? If he was aware of these things, why did he not reveal his entire plan to Canadians? Why did he decide to hide what he wanted to do and what he intends to do now?

[Pensions, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have a rather different definition of the words, “taking care of”. For those who were born in 1951, or 1955, or 1956 or 1957, there is not a soul out there who knows exactly how they are going to be taken care of by the Conservative government. The odd definition of taking care means it is deep-sixing benefits for people who thought they were going to get them and who were told by the Prime Minister—

[Pensions, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the time of the last election, the Prime Minister's party put out an election platform that said, “we will not cut transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces for essential things like health care, education, and pensions”.

I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us this. He talked in Davos about a demographic crisis and he talked about it again today. Many experts disagree with the Prime Minister, many experts whose studies were commissioned by his own government. Was the Prime Minister aware of this so-called demographic crisis at the time that he and his party made the election promise they made just a few short months ago?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is one of the members opposite who has respect for what I have been doing over my political life. As I hear from some others, I am not sure that respect is broadly shared by the other side. I appreciate the comment.

We will be deciding as a caucus what our response will be to the legislation. We do not think this is the great, big, bold step as it has been described by her party. We certainly do not think it is going to provide a resolution to the current challenges facing this generation of workers and the next generation of senior citizens.