Lisa Raitt

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Good gymnastics, Mr. Chair, but not a 10, because later on in his book, from which this quote came, the minister then went on to say, “Phasing in the eligibility age for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67 is a step in that direction”, “that direction” being a good direction.

Can the minister comment this time on whether or not he thinks that raising the real retirement age from 65 to 67 is an arbitrary decision?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, perhaps the minister will agree with this quote, which states:

If we were to retire three years later than we do now, any concerns about having adequate retirement income would practically vanish. It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging...population.

Does the minister agree with this quote?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, does the minister realize that the OECD actually recommended that countries move to 67 years of age for eligibility and indeed said the following?

Bold action is required. Breaking down the barriers that stop older people from working beyond traditional retirement ages will be a necessity to ensure that our children and grand-children can enjoy an adequate pension at the end of their working life. Though these reforms can sometimes be unpopular and painful, at this time of tight public finances and limited scope for fiscal and monetary policy, these reforms can also serve to boost much needed growth in ageing economies.

Why does the minister not agree with the Secretary-General of the OECD?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, does the minister realize that his Prime Minister actually announced that it would be moderate deficits to The Wall Street Journal in New York City, which is not in our county either?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, let us talk about retirement for a moment.

The minister said in committee this afternoon that moving the retirement age from 65 to 67 was an arbitrary decision made by the previous government.

I would like to know if the minister believes that 28 out of 34 countries doing the same thing indicates arbitrariness.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, the minister is fond of assessing the economy by saying that there has been a disproportionate increase in incomes in this country over the past 10 years.

Can the minister not confirm for me that the OECD has stated that between 2005 and 2011, household income has increased in Canada in the same proportion across the distribution of incomes?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, on the topic of economic growth, does the minister not agree with the fact that the entire world economy has experienced low growth in the past 10 years?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, does the minister realize that his expenses are up 8.6% over last year, and looking forward, there are extremely higher interims of program expenses?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, as members of the House know, the main estimates represent the government expenditure plan or its overview of spending for 2016-17. Spending, of course, is of great concern and interest to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, because that is exactly where we think the government goes off the path to true prosperity.

I am going to have questions for the minister for the full 15 minutes. I will start with revenues going forward.

In the budget of the government that was tabled in this place in March, the minister indicated that there would be revenues of approximately $291.2 billion. Also, he projected that there would be program expenses of $270.9 billion. That is very similar to what we had predicted in terms of the revenues for budget 2015-16 of $290.3 billion, the big difference, of course, being program expenses.

My question for the minister is this. Can the minister not recognize that the issue is with spending and not with revenues?

[Finance, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the “Fiscal Monitor” confirms the fact that the Liberals inherited a surplus from the Conservative government. It also confirms, though sadly, that just one short month, at the very end of the year, they were able to turn that surplus into a deficit.

While they preach the gospel of deficit spending, they stand alone because their G7 partners are still stuck on this whole balanced budget thing.

Did the minister engineer this deficit? Is he just proving to Canadians that he can spend it as quickly as we left it for him?