Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Pensions, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised not to touch old age security.

For months they refused to tell Canadians anything, but yesterday, they finally told the truth: they are going to push the age of retirement from 65 to 67. That is bad news for a lot of people. It is an unfair decision that is going to jeopardize the future of today's young people and seriously harm the most financially vulnerable people in our society.

Why are the Conservatives attacking seniors' incomes? They can do better than that.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we heard rumours in Switzerland, and two months or a little more later, the government finally deigns to give Canadians answers. Yes, the age of eligibility for old age security will be increased to 67 in the not too distant future.

I would like to know what the minister has to say to people who are concerned, who work full time, who live below the poverty line and who are unable to save for retirement. What does he have to say to people who cannot work longer because their bodies will not allow them to or because they are laid off at age 50 or 55? What does he have to say to people who are concerned about their private pensions, which were established based on the fact that they would be eligible for old age security at age 65? What does he have to say to all these people? A cut to old age security is a direct attack on the middle class and on people living below the poverty line.

I could even ask the minister what he has to say to the provinces, which, as a result of these cuts to old age security, are once again going to get stuck with the bill.

[Pensions, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, old age security is not sustainable? That is ridiculous.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour is massaging the numbers in order to scare people and justify these cuts.

The Government of Canada's chief actuary, the OECD, which conducted a study on pensions, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer are clear. These experts say that the old age security program is indeed sustainable.

The budget is about making choices. Today, the Conservatives have a choice: maintain our old age security program and fight poverty among seniors or put the money elsewhere.

Why are the Conservatives choosing to cut seniors' incomes?

[Pensions, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, all of the experts say that the old age security program is viable. That is pretty straightforward. The parliamentary secretary is also well aware that not everyone is in a position to plan for retirement. If the government scales back the old age security program, many people will suffer.

Yet the Conservatives say that, for the sake of future generations, they have to scale back this program, which is essential to Canadians. Well, I can tell you that my generation wants the program to remain as it is.

Future generations want the Conservatives to tackle climate change, not attack the old age security program. Why make cuts to a program that works well as it is?

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my father worked in maintenance at Air Canada for 30 years. Today my thoughts are with him and his former colleagues.

The minister talked about the tremendous efforts the government is making to facilitate the negotiations, and she said that the workers had refused attempts to reach an agreement. That is an edited version of the story, and it attempts to demonize the workers and the unions. We still do not know why these workers refused the agreement, what they are calling for and what working conditions are important to them.

Since the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is an expert on these matters, perhaps he could refer to the Canada Post case and tell us what the workers wanted in their agreements and what they were not willing to give up. Can he give us any information on what Air Canada's workers want as working conditions, which they are not willing to give up?

[Seniors, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot deny the facts. There are still thousands of elderly women who live below the poverty line, and successive governments have not been able to help them.

How can the government now say with certainty that future generations will be able to adjust to the changes announced to old age security? The minister has already told us that the Conservative government intends to make cuts to old age security. We already know that.

How will changes to the pension plan affect elderly people, women aged 55 who live below the poverty line, and future generations?

[Pensions, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we are consulting Canadians about cuts to old age security. Elderly women are particularly worried, and justifiably so. Single women over 65 are Canada's poorest citizens: 46% of them live in poverty. With International Women's Day approaching, I urge the government not to make things even worse for them.

Will the Conservatives finally tell us exactly what cuts they have in store for the old age security program?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the hon. member's speech because he clarified the NDP's position on trade agreements.

A little earlier, I heard a Conservative member ask why the NDP did not want to export Canadian products abroad. That is a completely ridiculous blanket statement. It makes me think of when the Conservatives said that, if we did not support the lawful access legislation, then we supported pedophiles. In fact, I would like to give the hon. member time to clarify our position further. An agreement like the one proposed here can serve to increase inequality. We know that there are always winners and losers when it comes to this type of agreement.

According to the hon. member, what conditions must be included in a trade agreement such as this one in order to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected and do not end up the losers?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interesting speech. The question raised by the member who spoke before me is very interesting, but I would like to modify it. Clearly, the NDP supports trade agreements between Canada and other countries, but not at any price and not under just any conditions.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the conditions that must be included in an international trade agreement. Such conditions would allow us to support this kind of agreement. We must ask who wins and who loses in these agreements and if they protect those who need it. The NDP often opposes such agreements. Thus, it is important to point out what conditions must be included in agreements of this kind for us to support them.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I asked myself that very question when I first read the bill. Would these elections bring anything positive to the Senate? Maybe, maybe not. It is not entirely clear. If the Prime Minister is the one who makes the final decision, to what degree would Canadians' choices be taken into account? That is a very good question.

Would this penalize provinces that cannot afford to hold an election? Would this create some sort of hierarchy in the quality of senators selected in each province? A great deal of uncertainty remains in that regard. However, one thing is certain: it is important that we probe much deeper into the issue of the Senate and ask ourselves if we should keep it or abolish it.