Judy Foote

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. We know that women, particularly women who are seniors, have a really difficult time.

The one thing we know is that when people lose a spouse, they lose half of their income but still have a home to run and many of the same expenses. It is so unfortunate that the ideology behind the government is that wealthy corporations deserve breaks and not those who are the most vulnerable.

My recommendation would be to err on the side of those who need help most and recognize that while there is nothing with making a profit, and I have always said that, companies need to recognize that the people who made it possible for them to make a profit need help as well.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the opposition day motion, which reads:

That this House reject the government's plan to raise the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement from 65 to 67 years even though the current system is financially sustainable.

I am not sure there is another issue that I can think of, recently anyway, that has galvanized the people of Canada so much in terms of opposition to what the government has proposed. It is totally unreasonable, unacceptable and unconscionable that a government would consider this. Seniors, some of whom have worked for years in very physically and mentally challenging environments, will now have to wait an additional two years to access a program that has been there for them for years. It is not right, not fair and is something that I hope Canadians will continue to speak out on and will continue to make representation about because, even though it will not impact those who are of age now to qualify for OAS, it will impact their children and their grandchildren.

We tend to lose sight of the fact that the longer we have people in the workforce, the less jobs there are available for those who are younger and looking to get into the working environment. Most of our young people today are unemployed or underemployed. What message are we sending them? The government is telling them that they will need to make a go of it themselves, that they will need to find a way to make it happen. If people are being forced to work until age 67, there will be fewer opportunities for young people and there will continue to be fewer opportunities as long as the Conservative government is in power because of the choices it makes that influences the people of Canada.

I will speak to how we arrived at this debate on this motion by highlighting some important dates in history. This shows the mindset of the Conservatives. In 1927, the Conservatives voted against the introduction of the old age pension. Fortunately, in 1951, a Liberal government passed the Old Age Security Act. In 1965, a Liberal government established the Canada pension plan. Later, in 1967, that same Liberal government, led by prime minister Lester B. Pearson, introduced a guaranteed income supplement and lowered the eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 70 to 65.

That was a government with a conscience. That was a government that recognized that things become difficult as one ages and that things tend to happen from a medical perspective as one ages. That was a government that recognized how important it was to take care of its citizens.

In 2001, the current Conservative Prime Minister and then member of the right wing National Citizens Coalition declared his disdain for national pension plans and wrote an open letter to the premier of Alberta demanding that Alberta withdraw from the Canada pension plan altogether. That puts it in perspective. That explains exactly where the government, led by the Prime Minister, is coming from.

More recently, in the 2011 election, the Conservatives assured Canadians that if elected they would not cut pensions. In black and white, on page 23 of the Conservative 2011 election platform, it says:

We will not cut transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces for essential things like health care, education and pensions.

Well, we know quite the opposite has happened. Unfortunately for Canadians, this commitment was nothing short of fiction.

In 2012 the Prime Minister showed Canadians his true colours when he hid during the election, which was only a year ago, and broke his promise not to cut the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

Unfortunately for Canadians this is not the first time the Prime Minister has made a promise to do one thing, only to do the opposite. Whether it be his broken promise in the 2006 election on the Atlantic accord, which impacted the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or his bogus commitment in 2008 election not to run a deficit, or his phony guarantee in the 2011 election to balance the books by 2014, the Prime Minister and his Conservative government have made it clear, through their legacy of broken promises, that they cannot be trusted to keep their word.

In budget 2012, after the Prime Minister committed to all Canadians in the last election, “We're not going to cut the rate of increase in transfers for healthcare, education and pensions. That is job number one”, the Conservatives are breaking another promise and decreasing the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement by raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 even though the current arrangement is more than sustainable.

The Conservatives tried to manufacture a structural crisis surrounding the financing of the old age security that just does not exist. While it is true that the retirement of baby boomers will result in increased costs for the old age security program, Canada's economy is expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years. That economic growth means that by 2030 the old age security program will only comprise 0.7% more of Canada's economy than it does today. This is not unaffordable by any measure.

The Conservatives are trying to manipulate the facts by not including the entire picture. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, 2030 is when old age security expenses will peak and following this peak, old age security expenditures will continue to decline until they return to current levels.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at this. He has come to this conclusion. He has researched the issue and it is totally contrary to what the government has said. Old age security is sustainable. Reckless Conservative spending is not.

On January 13, 2012, Jack Mintz, research director of the Government of Canada's working group on retirement income adequacies, stated:

The overall view that was taken about our pension system in total, when you look at Old Age Security, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, as well as Canada Pension Plan, was that it is relatively financially sustainable...

This is more research that points to the fact that the government is off-base and has no idea what it is talking about. A government that professes to be a competent manager and cannot get something as simple as this right, begs the question why, and the why is choice. It is the way the government thinks. It does not have a social conscience and this is a prime example of that.

The reality in Canada is 40% of old age security recipients earn less than $20,000 a year in retirement. This proposed delay will cost our lowest income seniors over $30,000 in benefits. This cut to the old age security will have a devastating effect on the retirement security of our most vulnerable future seniors.

Since the Prime Minister announced his plan to cut the old age security when he was in Davos, I have heard opposition from every corner of my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, and not just in my riding, but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and from the rest of the country.

This unscrupulous action by the Conservative government, and there have been many more, has garnered so much opposition and resulted in so much negative feedback. It is the wrong decision and it is a decision that must be reversed or we will have a future generation of seniors who will be unable to pay for the most essential things like heat, light, food and medicine. This has to be overturned.

[Petitions, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who again take great exception to the government's decision to raise the eligibility age for OAS from 65 to 67, something the Liberal Party would never do.

The petitioners are explaining that for those who work in physically challenging environments and who look forward to retiring in comfort at the age of 65, to now have to work an additional two years is just unconscionable.

The petitioners are suggesting that the government reverse this decision, as it would have a drastic impact on our young people, who are right now the highest unemployed and underemployed in the country in terms of being able to find employment.

[Search and Rescue, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of all Canadians who may be nervous about spending time on the ocean surrounding Newfoundland and Labrador after today.

As the diligent staff at the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's spend their last day as usual, protecting the lives of mariners and all who travel along the longest coastline in Canada, flags throughout Newfoundland and Labrador fly at half-mast.

This morning in Ottawa, at the meeting of Transport Canada's standing committee on fishing vessel safety, all members of the committee observed a moment of silence in support of the maritime rescue sub-centre and in fear for the lives that may be lost as a result of the closure.

On average, this centre has overseen the response to 500 calls a year, many of them distress calls, resulting in approximately 600 lives saved annually. The intimate knowledge the employees have of Newfoundland and Labrador's coastline undoubtedly was a key factor in these rescues from the unforgiving elements of the north Atlantic.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing the critical and exemplary service provided by the employees of the MRSC in St. John's and trust that all who travel at sea, especially those who spend months at sea to earn a living for their families, will remain safe.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, slashing both food safety measures and jobs, Conservatives are cutting vehicle washing stations at Marine Atlantic ferry terminals in Newfoundland. These washing stations exist to prevent potato wart and potato cyst nematode-infected soil from being transported to other provinces.

The government says drivers will be responsible for removing the contaminated soil, but without the washing stations there is nowhere to wash away the contaminants.

Why is the government putting at risk a multi-billion dollar industry, in particular the potato industry in P.E.I. and New Brunswick?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 23rd, 2012]

With regard to the one-time projected closing costs of the Maritime Rescue Sub Centre in St. John’s (MRSC St. John’s) and the consolidation of MRSC St. John’s to Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax) and Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton (JRCC Trenton), what is the total cost of: (a) consolidating MRSC St. John’s to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (b) new training at JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton, including language training and overtime hours for replacement employees while employees are being trained; (c) relocation to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (d) upgrades required to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (e) benefits paid to employees who choose to leave the public service as a result of the consolidation; (f) recruitment of candidates to replace services provided by MRSC St. John’s; (g) travel for personnel and project managers between JRCC Halifax, JRCC Trenton, MRSC St. John’s and Ottawa as a result of the consolidation; (h) project management, including the replacement and supplementing of the Regional Superintendent of Search and Rescue to assist with consolidation logistics; and (i) other work force adjustments obligations, including reasonable job offers to affected employees?

[Petitions, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians, but particularly from people in Newfoundland and Labrador, about the decision of the government to raise eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67.

I listened to the minister today when she say that people were working nowadays until they were 85 years old. That is fine if that is by choice. However, when people work in very difficult work environments, whether in a fish plant, on the ocean, on an oil rig, the fact is these people need to be able to retire when they are 65 and not have to wait until they are 67.

[National Defence, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, when the government knew full well its F-35 plan was in a tailspin, the Associate Minister of National Defence repeatedly told Parliament everything was just fine and dandy. He said, “Our plan is on track. Things are working. The aircraft are coming off the production line”.

My question for the Associate Minister of National Defence, now the minister without portfolio, is this. Will he resign for misleading Canadians?

[Search and Rescue, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for months, the government has been told that the amalgamation of the maritime rescue sub-centres in St. John's and Quebec with Halifax and Trenton is wrong.

Now, Jason Hamilton, a former employee of the rescue centre in Halifax has written to the Minister of National Defence saying, “I consider these cuts to be irresponsible and dangerous. I hold you personally responsible for the repercussions if this amalgamation is allowed to continue”.

Will the Minister of National Defence reverse this dangerous decision before there are losses of lives?

[Points of Order, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, I have here in my hands a copy of a letter, which I am quite prepared to table, written by the parent of a young student who was actually in the school when the member spoke and advocated what I said in my question.

I would be prepared to table the letter for all to see. In fact, the letter was written to the Minister of Public Safety.