Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member offered up some figures, but I must point out that figures taken out of context mean nothing, because you can spin them however you want.

I could also cite the figure provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada was the result of austerity measures in the Conservatives' budget.

We can keep throwing figures back and forth. I think it is false to say that the Conservatives' cuts are necessary. We are constantly being told that if we do not make these cuts, we will incur all kinds of debt and the economy will suffer. Careful. This is the same government that is depriving the federal treasury of tens of billions of dollars in useless tax credits.

Let us put things back into perspective: cuts and the budget are a matter of choice; not a matter of obligation.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for picking up on what I spoke about earlier. I was saying that we can cope with Canada's aging population and maintain access to old age security at the age of 65.

Why do the Conservatives want to push that back to 67? That is an excellent question. If I knew what was going on in their heads, perhaps I would have the answer. If I had been given documents explaining why, perhaps I would have the answer.

No one can really understand why the government is pushing the age of eligibility for old age security back to 67. Why not 66 or 68? Why in 10 years? Why not in seven years? What effects will it have? And what costs will it transfer to the provinces?

Up until now, we do not have any of that information, which is completely unacceptable.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-45. I would like to open my remarks by joining those who spoke before me in saying that I do not agree with the way we are proceeding with Bill C-45, which is a mammoth omnibus bill. Call it what you will, but the fact remains that this bill is more than 400 pages long and has various parts dealing with different areas. Not only are we restricted to having only one debate, but we also have only one opportunity to vote on a massive bill containing a wide range of measures. For a party that boasted that it would be transparent and would stand up for democracy, this makes no sense. Frankly, we are wondering what has become of those lofty ideals today.

As a parliamentarian, I have to vote only once. This bill has some elements that I agree with and that I would be happy to vote in favour of. Unfortunately, it also has a number of incomplete and potentially harmful features that need major amendments or that should not be there in the first place. I am in a position where I have to vote for or against a wide range of measures and amendments. I think this way of doing things is neither transparent nor democratic.

A number of hon. members have asked us why we are complaining, because everything that is in Bill C-45 was already announced in the budget. I would like to set the record straight and say that that is not true. Not all the measures in Bill C-45 were in the budget. Let us stop lying to Canadians. That is shameful. For instance, one amendment in Bill C-45 has to do with the right of grain farmers to an appeal process. I did not find that in the main budget tabled last spring. The same goes for the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

There are things in Bill C-45 that were not clearly announced in the budget and that warrant careful consideration. Anytime we are faced with such an immense bill, there is always confusion and unexpected things.

The Liberals proposed removing the parts related to pensions from Bill C-45. If that proposal had been accepted, we would have voted in favour of the measure concerning members' pensions and the one concerning public service pensions and Canadian Forces members' pensions. With just one vote, and without any debate, we would have affected the pensions of over 450,000 Canadians.

Modifying people's pension plans without bothering to dedicate any time for consideration, debate or examination is such an insult. This shows a complete lack of respect and a negligent attitude toward democracy. The cavalier, disrespectful attitude this government is taking regarding such important issues for Canadians will undermine their confidence in our parliamentary system.

I would now like to take a closer look at one particular measure announced in Bill C-45: changing the eligibility age for public servants' retirement pensions. Anyone hired as of January 1, 2013, will receive his or her retirement pension at age 65 instead of 60. Five years is a long time; it is more than just a few weeks or a few months. This change is not really justified. The budget indicates that this measure is responsible and is important to ensuring the sustainability of the pension plan. However, those few words are by no means sufficient justification for making such a major change to the pension plan.

On what grounds is the viability of the program being determined? Perhaps there are reasonable grounds to believe the retirement age needs to be raised, but I doubt it. I will leave this open to discussion and debate. The government cannot simply declare that the viability is at risk and the age must therefore be raised; that is not enough. I want to see some figures and some studies proving that the viability is at risk at this time. I can easily draw a comparison with the changes announced to old age security.

All kinds of non-partisan expert studies show that old age security in its present form, with 65 as the age of eligibility, is sustainable in the long term. Of course we do not need complex calculations to know that costs will rise as the population ages. Old age security, a public pension program, will cost more because the proportion of seniors will be greater. Does this mean that the program is not sustainable in the long term? Not at all. Just because it will cost more does not mean that we will absolutely not be able to cover the costs. Experts' in-depth long-term analyses take into account a number of factors and unanimously confirm that old age security with 65 as the age of eligibility is a program that we can afford to keep.

On a number of occasions, the opposition has asked—as the critic for seniors, I have asked dozens of times—for the figures, studies and reports on which the government bases its claim that the viability of old age security is in jeopardy. To date, I have not seen any valid proof, or anything to justify these changes. The recent Auditor General's report clearly states that some figures and studies could have been made public to provide some indication of and information about the real reasons for changing the eligibility age for our old age security program. No figure has been published even though, in 2007, the government promised to do so and, in 2011, the Auditor General recommended that the government once again publish a report on long-term fiscal sustainability.

Furthermore, we also learned from the Auditor General's most recent report, which was released last week, that the Minister of Finance does not necessarily have all the information on the long-term impact of his decisions. He makes the decisions and then is subsequently informed by the department of the long-term impact of the decisions. Quite frankly, there is cause to be suspicious of the reasons for the changes proposed by Bill C-45 and by the Conservatives' most recent budget.

That concludes my remarks on pensions affected by Bill C-45 and the budget. I would also like to talk about another aspect related to Canadians' savings and their financial security: pooled registered pension plans.

Many experts agree that pooled registered pension plans will not enhance Canadians' financial security; rather, they will undermine it. Yes, we can do something to protect retirees' financial security. We can take meaningful steps and we can do it now if possible. The government should not introduce another savings vehicle similar to RRSPs and TFSAs. Not everyone contributes to RRSPs and TFSAs, which are savings vehicles. A whole lot of people cannot put money aside for retirement.

What are the unique advantages of a pooled registered pension plan? It will give employers the opportunity to provide a so-called pension plan—merely “so-called” because a PRPP is not a pension plan; it is a savings plan—without having to commit to anything. Employers can set up a plan that employees may contribute to if they want, which is fine, but employers do not actually have to do anything. If employers are not interested in participating, they simply do not have to. That is not a solution.

Many experts say that we have to rethink our defined benefit pension plan and that we have to protect it. That is the only thing that will put Canadians in a position to save for their retirement and allow them to count on a set amount of money when they retire. Changes are in order if we want to improve these pension plans and keep them viable. But we have to be serious about making those changes.

I could go on at length about this, but I see that my time is almost up. Nobody can cover everything in a 400-page bill in 10 minutes.

In closing, I want to say that, if the Minister of Finance thinks that austerity is prudent, he should be careful, because people must not be led to believe that the cuts he has proposed are in any way necessary. This is nothing but political rhetoric and lies, if I may say so.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about job creation, which is at stake in Bill C-45. I would like to come back to that, because my colleague did not go into detail on the matter.

In the Auditor General's most recent report, we saw that the Minister of Finance's decisions were not backed by the figures in a report on long-term fiscal sustainability. In other words, the Minister of Finance is making decisions without truly knowing what impact these decisions will have on public finances over the long term, which is concerning.

I would like to know whether my colleague knows what long-term effects the elimination of tax credits for research and development will have, for example. In my riding, there is a company that just cut 300 jobs. This company was very active in research and development, which is why this question came to mind.

Does my colleague know the long-term effects of a decrease in tax credits for research and development? If so, what is he using to back his long-term predictions?

[Finance, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. It is easy to quote the Auditor General. I can do that too: “...we found that the Government of Canada has not followed through on its 2007 commitment to publish a long-term fiscal sustainability report.”

That is clear. This report said that the Conservatives did not provide all the information on the financial consequences of their reform, even though they agreed to do so and were asked multiple times by parliamentarians.

Why did they hide this information? That is a simple question.

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite, the Conservatives, are telling us that they have the solution and that they want to move forward to solve this problem. However, interestingly enough, I have difficulty trusting people who do not recognize the crux of the problem and their own mistakes. I am a little doubtful about the sincerity and the pertinence of their measures.

I have two small examples. The minister said that no contaminated meat had reached stores because of ongoing recalls. It seems to me that this small, basic error could have been pointed out. The government also does not want to acknowledge the impact of cuts to the CFIA. And I could mention other similar discrepancies that were not raised in my colleagues' comments, questions or speeches.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Pas de la rue Seniors' Organization, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Montreal organization PAS de la rue launched a campaign to raise awareness about seniors' vulnerability. This organization was founded 15 years ago and welcomes, supports and encourages people 55 and over who are homeless or living in great poverty.

A number of factors contribute to their vulnerability: all too often they do not have enough income to meet their basic needs, there is a lack of social housing, the job market for older workers is precarious, and ageism is becoming more prevalent. The federal government has the power to address these factors.

Tomorrow, we will begin debating a bill introduced by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to ensure that all Canadians have safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing. The bill presents an excellent opportunity to address one of the most urgent problems affecting homeless single seniors.

I am proud to add my voice to that of PAS de la rue, which maintains that it is time to change the discourse about homeless seniors and the place of seniors in our society.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my colleague's speech, I forgot for several minutes that we were still debating the opposition motion. In fact, how can he talk about creating jobs or about taxes, when right now we are debating reforms to employment insurance? I did not hear him mention the real topic of today's debate once. He did not talk about how the government can propose reforms that will take away income from so many people.

I would like to give him an opportunity to correct some things he said and to get back to the topic of debate today. My colleague might like to correct what he said and explain who, exactly, will see their income go down, because there will be people. I would like to allow him to correct what he said.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. In it, she emphasized the importance of working, even if it is only a few hours a week because this allows workers to maintain their skills and remain active in the labour market.

I completely agree with her in that regard. However, the Conservatives' employment insurance reform will penalize workers who work a few hours a week while receiving employment insurance benefits. In fact, four out of 10 employment insurance claimants will be at a disadvantage. Their income will be cut in half.

Is the hon. member aware of this? If so, how can she explain to these workers, who work one or two days a week, that she supports a bill that will cut their income in half?

[Seniors, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, very few of the government's recent decisions will help seniors. Furthermore, I would like to add that increasing the eligibility age for old age security is equivalent to cutting services for seniors. I can understand why the minister would be ashamed to talk about it today because this is National Seniors Day.

As for employment insurance reform, she is causing us to fear the worst for older workers who lose their jobs.

These workers will have to accept lower pay or work far from home. Why will the Conservatives not help seniors who want to keep working?