House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 50% of the vote.
Veterans Affairs March 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, while I cannot comment on the specifics, I can assure the member that the people in my department are devoting their heart and soul to making the lives of our veterans better. This government is committed to that.
We are serving more than 200,000 veterans, families, spouses, widows and RCMP. We are delivering the VIP and other programs to them.
I have instructed my officials to give the best service to our veterans in a timely manner.
Veterans Ombudsman February 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Veterans Ombudsman entitled “Veterans' Right to Know Reasons for Decisions: A Matter of Procedural Fairness”.
Veterans Affairs February 14th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we speak and act on behalf of veterans. That being said, any show of disrespect toward our veterans is unacceptable and actually shocking. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an arm's-length organization that renders decisions for veterans.
Any time there is a breach of confidentiality, it is important that our action plan be applied, both here and by the board. What is clear to me is that on this side of the House, we support veterans. What is unacceptable is that the New Democrats have filled 13 pages with votes against veterans. On this side of the House, we will stand up for veterans.
Veterans Affairs February 14th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, as a government we care every day of the year for our veterans and we will continue to do so. Any show of disrespect toward our veterans is unacceptable and actually shocking.
As the member knows, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an arm's-length organization. When privacy breaches occur, I expect corrective measures to be put in place according to the most stringent policy.
Let me be clear. When the board renders decisions which affect our veterans' lives, fairness and equity are and have to remain the sole criteria.
Veterans Affairs February 13th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we believe that any privacy breach is totally unacceptable, especially for our veterans and their families. That is why we established a 10 point privacy action plan to tackle this issue. We have dealt with it with the Privacy Commissioner. We are on our way and we will update this program.
We cannot comment on any specifics but I can assure the member that any privacy breach is taken seriously and will continue to be.
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for her excellent question. I would like her to know that I am proud to be part of a government that is focusing on the economy as a way of ensuring that our retirees enjoy a comfortable retirement, both now and in the future. We are focusing on creating wealth in this country as a way of creating jobs. It is our workers, from all walks of life—factories, businesses and farming—who create wealth. It is our role to redistribute this wealth to our seniors, among others.
That is why, this fall, we are going to focus on the economy, which is also why we need the major green energy projects that will help us to create wealth and maintain our social safety net for our seniors.
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for referring to the important role played by the Veterans Affairs headquarters in Charlottetown, which is the flagship of the services provided to our veterans and their families.
That said, the same is true for retirees. They expect that we, as a government, will act responsibly, by ensuring that today's retirees receive all the benefits of old age security, benefits that we improved through income splitting and other measures that we put in place and for which, unfortunately, we did not have the support of the opposition.
I can assure the member for Malpeque that we are going to continue to ensure that our retirees keep getting the old age security to which they are entitled and that we will make sure that future generations also have access to a reliable and safe system.
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. Setting aside the rhetoric, there are facts. The fact is that since the last election on May 2, I have risen in this House, as a member from Quebec, to improve the quality of life of our most vulnerable retirees. I rose to support an increase in the guaranteed income supplement of $50 per month, which means $600 more per year in the pockets of our most disadvantaged retirees, those who need it the most. I would have liked the Liberal and NDP members from Quebec to support us, but that did not happen.
Fortunately, thanks to the willingness of our Conservative government, we are able today to improve the quality of life of our retirees. At the same time, we can ensure that future generations will also enjoy a stable income thanks to an old age security program that takes into account the demographic reality with which we are faced.
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate my colleague from Brant for his commitment, as this Conservative government has, to our seniors. I also thank him for his ongoing support of our veterans and their families.
I am pleased to rise today in this House to reaffirm the Conservative government's commitment to our seniors and retirees. Since the election on May 2, members from Quebec have had an opportunity to rise in this House to preserve the old age security program, index it and enhance it with the guaranteed income supplement. The Conservative members from Quebec and the ministers rose in this House to support these measures, maintain old age security and improve it.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the NDP and Liberal members, who not only remained seated, but also opposed any increase in income for our seniors. The guaranteed income supplement is $600 per single senior and $840 per couple. These are measures that the Conservative members from Quebec supported because we want to be able to provide the best for our seniors, especially the most vulnerable among them. It must be said that as Quebec members, we are here to support our seniors. We are going to continue to do so on this side of the House with our Conservative government.
There are changes on the horizon. Things evolve, just as they do in every sphere of life. These changes will affect everyone, the young and not so young, governments, businesses, organizations and associations. It is therefore our duty as elected representatives to anticipate these changes and act now in a responsible manner to ensure a bright future, and not put our heads in the sand as the opposition is doing and engage in fear mongering.
Canadians are having fewer children—that is a fact—but they are living longer and in better health than previous generations. This is a good thing. It is a fact and the data support it. Over the next five years, for the first time in our country's history, there will be more over 65-year-olds than under 14-year-olds, according to Statistics Canada. Over the longer term, it is estimated that by 2030, one out of every four Canadians will be over 65, compared to one out of seven today. A quarter of the population will therefore be 65 or over in 20 years, and I will be among them.
Aging populations are a global phenomenon. They can be observed in the big western democracies; Canada is by no means alone. If we compare ourselves to other countries, Canada’s population is among those that are aging the fastest.
Last year, the first baby boomer celebrated his 65th anniversary. While baby boomers head towards retirement and the fertility rate remains relatively low, the consequences of an aging population are, and will be, increasingly felt. The stakes are clear: there will be fewer and fewer young people, and there will be more and more seniors who will want to take advantage of services. As a result, there will be fewer young people to take over from their parents and grandparents, especially in the labour market. With fewer people in the labour force, the percentage of the total population that is working and able to finance public services and programs will drop. That is a fact, and it is important to be well prepared in order to address it.
Once again, it is worth quoting the figures. Today, in Canada, there are four workers for every person over 65. In 2030, it will no longer be four workers, but two. From that point on, the question will be how to provide a much larger cohort of retired Canadians with financial security without placing an excessive burden on a dwindling number of workers. In other words, how will the welfare of today's generations be assured without compromising that of future generations?
Many countries around the world are asking themselves exactly the same question. Some have already taken steps to mitigate and manage the repercussions of demographic changes on present and future generations as fairly as possible.
We know that the portion of revenue we invest in programs funded by the state to provide Canadians with financial security when they retire will be growing.
I am not talking about the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, which are funded by employers and employees. The Canada pension plan is on solid footing, according to Canada’s chief actuary, but this did not happen all on its own. Major changes were made to the Canada pension plan in the late 1990s to ensure that it would remain sound as the population ages and to ensure that it would be sustainable in the long term.
However, there have never been reforms to old age security, and it is paid for entirely out of taxes. What did previous governments do?
This is an important nuance. The Canada pension plan, which is well funded, was reformed. Old age security, which is funded by taxpayers, has never been reformed. It is therefore funded 100% out of income taxes, and all Canadians receive it at age 65. That means that the taxpayers of today are paying for the retirees of today, and the taxpayers of tomorrow, who will be less numerous, will be paying for the retirees of tomorrow, who will be more numerous.
It must also be pointed out that when old age security was created in the 1950s, life expectancy was 66 years for a man and 71 years for a woman. Half of Canadians received it at age 70.
Today, Canadians receive it at age 65; men are living 10 years longer, on average, and women are living 12 years longer, on average, than in the 1950s. This is good news. Fortunately, life expectancy is still increasing, and people’s quality of life, in particular their health, has continued to improve in recent decades. However, the old age security program has not adapted to these new facts of life.
As well, and again according to the chief actuary, who provides us with reliable, sound data, it is anticipated that old age security program spending will increase from $36 billion in 2010 to $108 billion in 2030, the year when the number of baby boomers who have reached the age of 65 will peak.
That said, we have been clear and we will be clear again tomorrow regarding pension programs like old age security: yes, seniors will continue receiving their benefits.
We are going to preserve old age security and index it. We, the Conservatives, have increased it, with the guaranteed income supplement. Nearly 1.9 million Canadians benefit from the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, thanks to our government. The same is true for those who are about to retire: they will not be affected.
People who are receiving old age security benefits will not lose a cent. In the long term, future generations expect that we will ensure the viability of the system so that they too can benefit from the plan, which is reasonable, and so that the most vulnerable Canadians are able to benefit from it.
It is time to make informed choices, because we still have several decades ahead of us. Inertia and the status quo, as the opposition parties are proposing, will take us to a harsh reality that taxpayers will have to face. That is irresponsible. That is why we have to address this issue with fairness and justice, with intergenerational equity, to ensure that our social system and social safety net are sustainable.
Canadians will not allow themselves to be duped by the opposition. They know our government is acting responsibly for the retirees of today and for retirees of future generations.
Veterans February 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member just said, our government is maintaining veterans' benefits. As for Ste. Anne's Hospital, we will ensure that our veterans continue to receive high quality services in both official languages.
We are doing this and we plan to transfer responsibility for Ste. Anne's Hospital to the Government of Quebec for one very clear reason: we want to maintain high quality services for our veterans. We want to maintain the quality of the services offered to veterans and the public, as well as to maintain good jobs in health care.