Brad Butt

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-38, the 2012 budget implementation act. This is a very important bill for all Canadians as it is a real plan for jobs, growth and prosperity for the near and long term.

We could take the easy road. We could sit back and say that everything is okay and just keep ragging the puck. We could continue to brag about Canada being a world leader in job growth, financial stability and strong presence in the world. We could kick the can down the road and say that looming issues are someone else's problem. We could but we are not.

Budgets are about choices. Just like families in my riding that make choices about how to spend their money, how to save and invest for the future and how to care for themselves and others, so, too, must government. In fact, I would argue that government must lead by example and, through budget 2012, we are doing just that.

However, we must remember the record. Through responsible management, our government has helped the Canadian economy create over 700,000 net new jobs since July 2009, most of which are full-time positions. Canada's economy has expanded for nine of the last ten quarters. Our unemployment rate is well below that of the United States. The World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the fourth consecutive year. Canada continues to have a solid AAA credit rating.

Building on this success, economic action plan 2012 provides $1.1 billion over five years to support research and development and $500 million for venture capital. We know that prudent investments and partnerships with the private sector will continue to create good jobs for Canadians in the future.

The budget also improves support for advanced research through granting councils, such as Genome Canada, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Mississauga—Streetsville is home to many research and development companies in life sciences, pharmaceutical, high technology and niche manufacturing that will benefit from these programs.

Canada is a very rich country in terms of its resources. Whether it be oil, natural gas, forestry or mining, Canada has a unique natural advantage over most other countries in the world. That is why this budget bill focuses on responsible resource development by ensuring that major resource projects are not bogged down by duplicative regulations and that one project receives only one thorough review.

The city of Mississauga is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. We have residents from hundreds of countries of origin who call Mississauga their home, and we are happy to have them. What is even more exciting is that many of these people work in companies that do business around the world, rely on strong trade relationships and do import and export services worldwide. That is why I am so pleased that our government has the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history.

We know that free, fair and open trade is good for Canadian business. We know that Canadians can compete with the best in the world and we can win. We know that signing free trade agreements with countries around the globe give Canadians fair and better access to international markets.

As well, the bill would reduce red tape that often frustrates business and acts as a disincentive to invest. It would reduce the tax compliance burden for small businesses and make a number of significant administrative improvements at the Canada Revenue Agency.

I am also pleased to report that Bill C-38 would extend the hiring credit for small business for another year, providing up to $1,000 for one year to encourage the hiring of new employees. This budget would also provide $50 million to the youth employment strategy and $6 billion to expand the successful ThirdQuarter project to help employers find experienced workers over 50 who want to keep using their skills in the workforce. There also are $150 million for investing in small public infrastructure to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities. This would build upon the very successful infrastructure stimulus program that brought together the provinces, territories and municipalities in the most co-operative program in Canadian history.

Like every Canadian family, the federal government, too, much re-look at how it spends hard-earned taxpayer money and constantly ensure both value for money and spending on the most important priorities. The budget focuses on eliminating waste in the internal operations of government and making government leaner and more efficient, totally $5.2 billion in ongoing savings. This represents just 2% of total program spending in 2016-17 and, with this and other initiatives, I am pleased to report that we will remain on track to balance the budget over the medium term as we promised.

To continue to help families, we are improving the registered disability savings plan, increasing the travellers exemption, continuing support for Participaction and enhancing the victims fund. No government in recent memory has done more to support Canadian seniors than this one. I was pleased in the first budget, on which I was able to vote as a member of Parliament, that we brought in the largest one-time increase in the guaranteed income supplement in over 25 years. We have significantly increased funding to the new horizons program, and I am delighted to report that the Hindu heritage seniors group in my riding has just received one of these grants.

Further, our government continues to provide support to the old age security program for existing recipients and those near retirement at current levels with no reductions or changes whatsoever. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that the OAS system is protected for future generations and not simply pass the buck to some government down the road. That is why we are moving forward with a prudent, responsible and proactive change to the OAS by raising the age of entitlement from 65 to 67 by 2029.

I just marked my first year of being elected to this place. It has been an exhilarating experience and an honour of a lifetime. I knew that part of my responsibility as a member of Parliament was to do my very best to make this a better country for everyone but I also knew that tough and maybe unpopular decisions would need to be made to make this happen. As one member of Parliament in this place, it would be completely irresponsible for me to sit here and pretend that the OAS will be sustainable for my generation. I cannot even imagine the MP who will replace me one day in the future having to deal with this issue a decade or so from now if we do not act today. Why on earth would I saddle a future government, a future Parliament or a future MP for Mississauga—Streetsville with this issue in the future when I know we can act responsibly now?

The number of Canadians over 65 will increase from 4.7 million today to 9.3 million in 2030. The cost of OAS will rise from $36 billion to $108 billion. Meanwhile, the number of taxpayers that pay for OAS will go from 4 today to 20 in 20 years. With statistics like this, how can we possibly close our eyes? Even though this decision may not be popular, it is simply the right thing to do.

At the beginning of my remarks today I said that we could take the easy road. We could sit back and soak it all in. We could say that we are better than most and rest on our laurels. However, that is not leadership for the future and that is not helping the next generation. We must move ahead.

I encourage all members to support this excellent budget.

[Old Age Security, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the member for Charlottetown did not see fit to work co-operatively with the government to ensure the sustainability of the old age security program. Given the clear facts regarding the demographic realities our country is facing, I had hoped that the opposition would be interested in a more than short-sighted political rhetoric but, apparently, this is not the case.

It is particularly hypocritical, as it was the Liberals in the mid-nineties who first floated the idea of addressing the sustainability issues facing the old age security program. It was their then finance minister, Paul Martin, who attempted to bring forward necessary changes to the old age security program.

Unfortunately, the Liberals lacked the principle to do the right thing at that time. I am hopeful that they will see that the time is now to correct that inaction and join with us in making these common sense and reasonable changes.

I will be clear on the government's proposed changes to the old age security program. Current recipients of OAS and those aged 54 and older as of March 31 of this year will not be affected by these changes.

Starting in 2023, which is 11 years away, we will gradually raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. We are making these changes to the OAS because we want it to be there, not only for the baby boomers who are mentioned in the motion, but the generations to follow, people just like me.

Since we announced an increase in the age of eligibility, we have been very straightforward in telling Canadians why we are making this change. This government is taking action now to ensure that the OAS will be there for future generations before it is too late, and we are doing this without impacting current or near seniors and without putting an undue tax burden on younger generations.

We agree with this motion in recognizing the contributions of the baby boom generation and the positive impact that they have made in building Canada. The opposition, by using the term “baby boom generation”, implies that it knows something about demographics, which is why it continues to amaze me that the opposition does not accept the reality that demographics will challenge the sustainability of this program.

I will put this in perspective. In the 10 years from 1946 to 1956, the population of Canada increased by an unprecedented 20%. The baby boomers were economic drivers from the time of their birth. During the good times that followed, baby boomers themselves contributed to building a country that enjoys one of the healthiest economies in the world, as well as freedom and democracy. That is something for which we should be grateful proud.

Today, the boomers form our largest demographic group and the first of them started turning 65 in 2011. This has significant implications for our country. Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. In 1970, the average 65-year-old could expect to live to 81. Today, that has increased by four years. At the same time, Canada's birth rate is much lower than during the immediate post-war era. This shift has had an impact on our labour market.

In the 1970s there were seven working age Canadians for every person over the age of 65. In 20 years there will only be two working age Canadians for every senior. This means there will be fewer workers to take the place of baby boomers when they retire. Over the next 20 years, the number of Canadians over the age of 65 will jump from 4.7 million to 9.3 million. This will staggering increase in a relatively short period of time and it will come with a high price tag. The annual cost of the OAS program is expected to triple between 2010 and 2030, from $36 billion to $108.

At the same time as our seniors' population rises, the ratio of workers to retirees will be falling.

Unlike the Canada pension plan, the OAS is financed entirely from tax revenue that workers pay that year. Canada is changing rapidly and the old age security program must change with it to remain affordable. That is why we announced that the age of eligibility for OAS and the GIS will gradually increase from 65 to 67 starting in April 2023. These changes will be fully implemented by January 2029. The changes to the eligibility age for the OAS pension and the GIS will not affect anyone who was 54 or older as of March 31. For the allowance and the allowance of the survivor, anyone who was 49 years of age or older as of March 31 will be unaffected.

I will put this into perspective. People are living longer and, therefore, collecting OAS benefits longer. A 65-year-old today can expect to receive OAS benefits for 20 years compared with 16 years in 1970. By 2030, people who start receiving OAS benefits at 67 would also receive them for about 20 years.

Many OECD member countries have recently planned or announced increases to the age of eligibility for their public pension programs, including the United States.

The increase in the age of eligibility to the OAS will not affect current seniors. The 11 year advance notification and the subsequent 6 year phase-in period would give those who are affected ample time to make adjustments to their retirement plans. All Canadians can find a wealth of information on the Service Canada website regarding planning for retirement.

It is about ensuring a program that has served Canadians for generations will be there for generations to come.

We owe a lot to our seniors. They built our country and they deserve a secure and dignified retirement. Our government is determined to take responsible, fair and prudent action to ensure that the OAS program remains sustainable. It is the responsibility of the federal government to think of the future and to act in the long-term interests of all Canadians.

Sadly, the opposition has refused to acknowledge the realities of our aging population. The opposition parties have chosen the low road. Their baseless fear-mongering and wilful ignorance of the need for change does not serve the interest of Canadians. We will not follow the opposition approach of sticking our head in the sand and pretending we are oblivious to the coming challenges.

I ask all members of this House to consider our duty to our constituents and to this great nation, to rise above petty partisanship, to reflect on the actions that need to be taken and to ensure the fiscal sustainability of our cherished social programs. As such, I ask all members of this House to reject the opposition motion and support the actions our government is taking.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. We are addressing the reality. We are not ignoring the reality of where we are going. The fact is that by 2030 there will only be two working people paying taxes to support OAS for every one person collecting it. I think my 12-year-old daughter in grade 7 can figure out the math as well as anybody.

Let us be realistic here. We are acting in a prudent, responsible way. People my age and younger are being given ample notice about this gradual change. I think we are acting in a fair and responsible way.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I followed quite closely and with some humour, over the years when the Liberals were in government, how many issues they avoided and pushed to the back burner, ignored and sloughed off, and they never got the job done.

What is happening? The Liberals totally ignore demographics. They totally ignore the fact that people are living longer. They totally ignore the fact that the senior population is growing much more rapidly than any of the other population demographics in the country.

The Liberals can ignore it. We are acting on it. They are living in la-la land. We are getting the job done.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government has done a tremendous amount for the lowest-income people in this country, including our lowest income-seniors, with the largest increase in the guaranteed income supplement in 25 years. We take those issues very seriously, and we act.

The other bill the member may want to support when it comes back concerns our new registered pooled pension plan, which is directly designed for the lowest-income people to have a new, flexible retirement pension plan tool that they can contribute to. It is flexible. If they work at Tim Hortons today and McDonald's tomorrow, it is portable. They can take that pension plan with them. We encourage all Canadians to take advantage of that great program when we establish it.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to respond to the motion from the member for London—Fanshawe on our government's plan to raise the eligibility for the old age security program from 65 to 67 years of age.

We cannot hand over our problems to the next generation and expect it to solve them. That is the irresponsible course of action that the opposition is arguing in favour of with this motion today. Sadly, this would not be out of place if it were a Liberal motion. In the mid-1990s, then finance minister Paul Martin attempted to bring forward his plan to ensure the sustainability of the old age security program. Unfortunately, the Liberals lacked the principle to do the right thing at that time. I am hopeful they will see the time is now to correct that inaction and to join with us in making these common sense and reasonable changes.

In 2010, annual OAS costs were $36 billion. If nothing is done, in less than 20 years the program costs will triple to $108 billion. In other words, from 13¢ of every federal tax dollar to 21¢ will be the jump in cost. However, this is not an issue of how much money will be saved but, rather, whether we will make the choices now to ensure the very sustainability of the OAS program over the long term. This is what these changes are about: making sure the system will be there for future generations when they need it.

The aging of our population is forcing us to confront a new reality. In 1970, the average man lived to be 69 and the average woman lived to be 76. Today, life expectancy is 79 for men and 83 for women. That is good news, but it also means that without changes Canadians will be collecting retirement and social benefits for a much longer time than they did when the OAS was first introduced, at a time when seniors will comprise a larger proportion of Canadian society. The Chief Actuary forecasts that the number of OAS recipients will double from 2010 to 2030, from 4.8 million to 9.3 million. In the same time period, the ratio of working-age Canadians relative to the number of seniors is expected to fall. Right now, there are four working-age Canadians for every senior. By 2030, that number will shrink to two working-age Canadians to every senior. This is a critical ratio, as OAS benefits are paid out of the taxes collected in a given year.

Currently there are four working-age Canadians to support every senior and, as I said, in 20 years there will only be two, so not only are program costs rising, but there will be fewer taxpayers available to pay for the social programs seniors will be relying on.

These numbers are not new. The reality of an aging population has been known for quite some time. The result will be less financial room for other government priorities, such as the Canada health transfer, the Canada social transfer, public safety and children's benefits. Can the member for London—Fanshawe please tell us which of these programs she would cut?

The Edmonton Journal's editorial board has this to say:

...we should thank...[the Prime Minister] for having the courage to start the conversation. It would have been far easier to pass the buck to his successor a few more years down the road.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the previous Liberal government did. It simply passed the buck. We can see the result of that. In five out of six elections since the Liberals formed government, Canadian voters returned fewer and fewer Liberals to this place than were here before. This is also why Canadians decided to elect a strong, stable national majority Conservative government.

They understood that under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canadians would be guaranteed a principled government that would act to ensure the long-term prosperity of our great country.

Let us clear about one thing. Our proposed changes do not affect current OAS or GIS recipients. These individuals will not lose one cent. We will gradually raise the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 starting on April 1, 2023. That is 11 years from now, and the change will be phased in gradually over a period of 6 years. We believe this will prevent any undue hardship to Canadians. People who are close to retirement, that is people age 54 and over as of March 31 of this year, will not be affected in any way by this policy change.

I would also like to highlight two other changes to the OAS program that were announced in budget 2012: proactive enrolment and voluntary deferral.

Starting in 2013, we will begin the proactive enrolment of many seniors for their OAS benefits. This will largely eliminate the need for eligible seniors to apply for OAS benefits. It will also ensure that more seniors receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This measure will reduce the application burden on many seniors and reduce the government's administrative costs.

On July 1, 2013, our government will provide Canadians the choice to voluntarily defer their OAS pension. This will permit individuals to delay receiving their OAS pension by up to five years in exchange for an enhanced monthly pension for the rest of their live. This will provide increased choice to Canadians as to when they wish to retire and will allow Canadians who do continue working to increase the size of their monthly benefit after they stop working. To be clear, the amount received by those who delay their OAS will be the same over the life of an individual as those who begin receiving their benefits as soon as they are eligible.

We will also ensure that certain federal income support programs that currently end at age 65, including programs that are provided for our veterans and low-income first nation individuals on reserve, are aligned with changes to the OAS program. This will ensure that individuals receiving benefits from these programs do not face a gap in income at ages 65 and 66. We will also compensate the provinces for the net cost to their social programs caused by the increase in the age of eligibility.

To be clear, these proposed changes will not affect the Canada pension plan, as the CPP and the OAS are two separate programs, and there is no reduction to seniors' benefits. The Chief Actuary has confirmed that the CPP is financially sound and fully sustainable for the long term. The changes proposed to the OAS program will secure the retirement benefits of future generations making the program sustainable for the long term.

The numbers tell us that we have to confront our fiscal and demographic realities to serve the best interests of all Canadians both now and in the future. If we do not reform the OAS, there are only two other solutions: either to raise taxes or to divert funds from other programs and services.

I do not think it will come as a surprise to members in this House that our government remains committed to our low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth. That is why we are proposing these modest changes to ensure the OAS is put on a sustainable path so it is there when Canadians need it most.

Canada's prospects are bright. Among the G7 countries, Canada has posted the strongest growth in employment, with 693,000 jobs created since the depth of the recession.

Thanks to the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and our Conservative government, Canada is in the enviable position of having the financial flexibility to phase in these changes over a lengthy period of time.

Sadly, we are witnessing more narrow-minded political games from the opposition. Its reckless approach would jeopardize the very sustainability of the OAS program and demonstrates a wilful ignorance of the reality of our aging population.

I urge the member and her party to listen to what she has said in the past and support our government by voting against this motion.

[National Day of Mourning, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the National Day of Mourning is marked every year on April 28. The Government of Canada officially recognized this in 1991 to commemorate those workers whose lives have been lost or who have been injured in the workplace. The National Day of Mourning has since spread to about 80 countries around the world.

This Saturday we will remember those who have lost their lives or have been injured in the workplace. These people are hard-working Canadians who went to work, provided for their families, and worked to make Canada a better place in which to live.

Even one workplace death or injury is too many for the family that is affected, which includes families of members of the House who have been personally affected by a workplace death.

The annual observance of the day hopefully will serve to strengthen the resolve of all of us to continue to establish safe conditions in the workplace.

My colleagues and I remember those who have lost their lives. We reaffirm our collective commitment to ensure that all Canadians can return home safe and sound at the end of the day.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have noticed that a lot of speakers have concentrated on one half of the bill and not on the other, and I would like to give that opportunity to my colleague.

The bill is called the citizen's arrest and self-defence act. However, I think that we have had some weird court decisions involving people who were simply trying to defend themselves and the perpetrator came back to swed them. The bill would help to provide better clarity for the judiciary, police, crown attorneys and so on, who would potentially lay charges or look at these individual situations.

Does the member for Winnipeg Centre want to address that aspect of the bill and indicate whether he thinks it is a good thing to have more clarity around issues of people acting in self-defence?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Welland for a very thoughtful speech about the importance of this bill. I think most members of this House will be supporting this bill in the end, even though some people may have one concern or another.

One of the reasons I am supporting this bill is for the small businesses in the Streetsville business improvement area in my riding. These are hard-working local merchants, often one person working in a store, and they have been victimized. There has been a robbery, an assault or something. Quite often we find in these cases that the perpetrators return. They realize it was a good place to try to commit another robbery because it worked well previously. They can escape around the back quickly. However, sometimes the shop owner is able to get a picture of the perpetrators on video or maybe a glimpse of them. Then the perpetrators come back.

Would the member not agree that this bill is perhaps designed to help out that type of small merchant in communities all across Canada to be able to take some action if perpetrators return, and not be subject to charges as could presently be the case?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when Liberal dirty trickster Adam Carroll was caught circulating the divorce files of a member of this House, he lost his job. Today, after trying to avoid accountability for months, Parliament finally had a chance to question him. Here is what we learned.

First, the Liberal research bureau keeps copies of divorce files of members of the House in cabinet files in its office. This is an abuse of taxpayer money. The Liberal leader needs to explain why the taxpayer-funded Liberal research bureau is paying for this.

Second, we learned that Mr. Carroll may have received a massive payoff from the Liberals. After admitting that he was fired for his actions, Mr. Carroll was asked if he was collecting a severance, and he refused to answer.

In any workplace other than the Liberal Party, when one is fired for cause, one does not collect severance. Why does the Liberal Party act differently for its own staff with taxpayer money?