Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants spoke at length about the Prime Minister's strategy to manufacture a pension crisis to find a way to pay for how the Prime Minister has deteriorated the tax revenue base of the country.

What is the Prime Minister's long-term game plan? In a letter to Premier Ralph Klein in 2001 he mentioned that the province should do the following:

Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund.

That was the Prime Minister's view at the time. He added:

Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan—

What does the member for Kings—Hants really think the long-term of the Prime Minister is? We know what he is doing on health care where he has frozen the funding. He sent his Minister of Finance to do that.

Is there another game plan of the Prime Minister that we have not yet seen?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I always like to listen to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. His headquarters is in P.E.I. and he is there a fair bit. I congratulate him for coming down to work out of that office sometimes.

He would know that Prince Edward Island would be seriously affected by these proposed changes to increase the age. There are roughly 42,000 baby boomers in Prince Edward Island. It is a retirement haven. People are coming back to retire. Therefore, this is a very serious issue.

I was surprised that the Minister of Veterans Affairs talked about a quarter of the population reaching the age of 65 in 20 years, again trying to create the false argument that it is strictly a taxpayer-funded base. As he admitted, it is funded out of general revenue, out of the general tax base. What is important is the total taxation system. Lowering corporate taxes will certainly hurt the ability to pay in the future.

Is the government trying to manufacture a crisis to cover up its fiscal management in this country and, in the process, trying to gouge seniors' pensions?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the arguments of my friend from Brant, but demographics is a false argument. I am surprised at the Conservative members who try to use it because OAS comes out of general revenue.

In yesterday's Globe and Mail a story by Bill Curry started off by saying:

Expert advice commissioned by the federal government contradicts [the Prime Minister's] warnings that Canada can’t afford the looming bill for Old Age Security payments.

The study was done by Edward Whitehouse, who is well-known at the World Bank and OECD, and his conclusion was this:

The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes, and there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future.

The fact is it is not because of demographics that OAS could be in trouble. It is because of the ridiculous spending by the current government in terms of lowering the revenue base by corporate tax cuts, jets, jails, a bloated cabinet and the list goes on immensely.

Will the member not admit that the real reason the OAS could be in trouble is because of the spending by the government out of general revenue, not demographics?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks. I think he would agree that the bottom line comes down to the fact that, although we are hearing different stories from a number of ministers, the Prime Minister is gouging seniors' pensions in order to try to cover the deficit that he created.

It is not just a matter of the government having its priorities wrong. I see the minister for ACOA. The government has been featherbedding ACOA, putting in place defeated Conservative candidates, friends of the Minister of National Defence, and paying them big salaries. The Conservatives have the biggest cabinet in Canadian history, all with well-paid staff. There is a bloated Prime Minister's office with 1,500 communications people. There will be an increase in the House of Commons by some 30 members, and both the other parties agreed to that.

Is it not simply a matter of the government having its priorities wrong and gouging seniors' pensions to try to cover the misplaced spending of the Government of Canada?

[Pensions, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it clear in Davos that he will tackle the deficit his government created by gouging seniors' pensions. We know where the Prime Minister stands, but where do Conservative members stand? Does anyone over there have the backbone to say no to the Prime Minister?

My question is for the regional minister for P.E.I. Over 40,000 island baby boomers, as well as the island economy, will be seriously affected by this attack on pensions. Is the regional minister willing to stand up, defend islanders and just say no to the Prime Minister on his attack--

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, one thing that is for certain under this particular regime, the House of Commons is becoming the house of closure, no question about it.

What is the real compelling reason that the House leader is invoking closure or time allocation? This chamber is always public but the track record of the government in committee is that when bills get to committee they are put in camera and the government tries to prevent a number of witnesses coming forward from the opposition members. Is that part of the reason, to take the debate out of the public arena and shove it to committee? Just in case that might be the case, would the House leader answer whether he would allow all the hearings in committee to be in public?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

How much did the government spend in travel and hospitality for its failed bid to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2010?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

How much has each member of Cabinet spent on limousine and taxi services since January 1, 2009?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Department of National Defence, since August 14, 2007: (a) how many times has the Minister of National Defence used military equipment for travel; (b) what type of equipment was used; (c) what is the detailed list of each trip; (d) what was the destination of each trip; and (e) what was the cost of each trip?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the airports in Canada for which the lands or infrastructure are owned by the government: (a) what studies has Transport Canada or any entity under contract with a department undertaken regarding a review of the National Airport Policy, including the privatization of these airports and what airports are being considered for privatization in any such study; (b) what are the revenues for the government anticipated in any such study regarding the privatization of airports, (i) as a whole, (ii) listed individually by airport; (c) what advice have consultants KPMG or any other entity under contract with the government given on the privatization of airports currently owned by the government; and (d) what is the current annual revenue paid to the government by airports for rent?