Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Community Organizations, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, here is a surprising statistic: one-quarter of the people who live on Montreal's West Island have, at some point, requested help from a community organization. In Pierrefonds—Dollard, community organizations provide a variety of important services. The Comité d'aide Cloverdale provides affordable meals to children; the Family Resource Center helps courageous students to overcome academic difficulties; VON Montreal provides palliative home care. If I could, I would name them all. Although all of these organizations have different missions, they all face the common threat of unstable and insufficient funding.

That is why the work of the West Island Community Shares is essential for the community. It has a mandate to raise funds which are then distributed to local community organizations in the West Island. Just two weeks ago, Community Shares collected $140,000 at its red and white event.

I am proud to say that in the West Island we are all in solidarity. I thank the West Island Community Shares for organizing the event and I thank everyone who donated. This is--

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. He mentioned, among other things, that no changes had been made to the bill in committee, which is not really surprising. We are dealing with yet another time allocation. This is a fine example of the government's failure to listen.

Earlier, I asked the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley to name a single concern of Canadians with regard to Bill C-11, but he was unable to do so. He could not name a single suggestion that had been made in committee to improve this bill.

Perhaps my colleague was listening a bit better. Could he provide some examples of suggestions that were made to improve this bill, in order to illustrate that the committee members worked together and listened to experts and the public?

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not understand the question, since he did not answer it at all, when actually, the question was about listening. Given the time allocation imposed on today's debate and the many others that have also been imposed, can anyone blame me for questioning the Conservatives' desire to engage in dialogue and really work with the other parties to improve the bills they introduce?

My question is rather simple. Can the member opposite give some examples of the concerns expressed by Canadians or the opposition party? This would show us that he really listened to those concerns and took them into consideration. He talked about the right balance, but clearly, many people do not agree. Did he really listen to their concerns? What are they and how did he deal with them?

[Pensions, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it really seems that the minister chooses her experts based on whatever suits her. The one thing I do know is that Canadian families are right to be afraid when it is obvious that this government is not even capable of answering a very simple question. I have received several emails from constituents in Pierrefonds—Dollard who have told me that had the Conservative government spoken publicly about making cuts to old age security, they would undoubtedly not be seated where they are today.

Why not tell us clearly whether the Conservative government intends to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67?

[Pensions, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot stop talking about taking action regarding the old age security program, but she refuses to provide any further information. In fact, all that we know about her plan is that she intends to make future generations pay for the Conservatives’ fiscal mismanagement. That is all that we know for the time being. The minister has said that we must listen to the experts. Perfect. Well, yesterday, an expert spoke. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the program is not under threat in the long term.

Will the Conservatives give us a straight answer? Will the retirement age be increased from 65 to 67?

[Pensions, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it disgusts me that the government is making cuts like these on the backs of future generations. It is unacceptable. By threatening to change the old age security program as it is currently doing, the government is clearly pitting one generation against the other. In fact, the government is mortgaging the future of our future generations. That is what is really happening.

What will happen to young workers when they reach retirement? We do not know yet; that is for certain.

Will the government increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 or not?

[Pensions, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the government has to cut social programs. This is not true. There are other options. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and experts have been clear: the program is viable in the long term. People are planning for retirement now, whether they are 59 or 29. The younger generation of workers is concerned, and they have the right to plan their retirement like everyone else. People need this information.

Can the minister tell us whether or not the government will increase the retirement age from 65 to 67?

[Pensions, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am part of those future generations and let me just say that our social programs and services are important to me.

Future generations of pensioners will be most affected by any changes made to old age security. The provinces will also have to step up and help when seniors need more and more assistance.

Quebec was not even consulted. Not at all. What about consultations with the provinces, with pensioners, with workers? Is the eligibility age going to increase to 67, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate has gotten a bit out of hand. The motion talks about rejecting calls to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, and especially on the backs of the most financially vulnerable seniors. This motion also talks about taking immediate action to deal with seniors living in poverty. Last summer, if I recall correctly, this government adopted a similar motion, so I do not understand the disconnect here.

What do the seniors in my colleague's riding think about this situation? The opposition is being accused of fearmongering. What I am hearing is that seniors are not afraid of what we are saying. They are afraid of the situation they are currently living in and they fear that it will only get worse with the announced cuts to programs and services.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's speech, I wonder who is trying to scare whom here. The government talks about the situation being critical, but the report by the Government of Canada's chief actuary says that our old age security system is viable and that the challenge of the aging population is a one-time challenge. We are not the ones who are trying to scare anyone. What is more, we are not trying to scare seniors. If gradual cuts to our programs and services are being announced then it is our young people who should be scared. People retiring in five, 10 or 30 years should be scared. They are the ones who probably should be worried about this government's cuts.

Does the minister promise to open discussions before her party makes changes to programs and services for seniors? Does she promise to consult people and work with the other parties to come up with a comprehensive solution to a global challenge?