header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. PMO Staff Run Government; Ministers Represent It
  2. On A Mostly Harmless Birthday
  3. The Trouble With Political Communications
  4. Politics: War By Other Means
  5. On the function of Social media
  6. C-18 is an existential threat, not a benefit, to democracy
  7. On Missing A Little More Than A Sub
  8. The Realpolitik Of Open Nomination
  9. What Is An Open Nomination, Really?
  10. Alberta election about identity, not policy
  11. The Trouble With Electoral Reform
  12. Mr. Bains Goes to Rogers
  13. Question Period
  14. Why do lockdowns and pandemic restrictions continue to exist?
  15. Parliamentary privilege: an arcane concept that can prevent coups
  16. It's not over yet
  17. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  18. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  19. Next steps
  20. On what electoral reform reforms
  21. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  22. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  23. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  24. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  25. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  26. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  27. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  28. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  29. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  30. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  31. older entries...

2016-04-20 14:53 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Oral questions, Pensions and pensioners, Retirement terms, Senior citizens,

Conditions de mise à la retraite, Pensions et pensionnés, Personnes âgées, Questions orales,

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, many of my constituents were worried that the previous government had increased the retirement age from 65 to 67. This poorly thought-out decision by the Conservatives caused a lot of anxiety for many residents of Laurentides—Labelle who wanted to plan for retirement.

Can the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development explain how the budget will reverse this bad decision in order to benefit Canadians?

Monsieur le Président, lors de la dernière campagne, plusieurs de mes concitoyens étaient préoccupés par le fait que le gouvernement précédent avait augmenté l'âge de la retraite de 65 à 67 ans. Cette décision mal conçue des conservateurs a causé beaucoup d'anxiété chez les résidants de nombreuses communautés de Laurentides—Labelle qui souhaitent planifier leur retraite.

Le ministre de la Famille, des Enfants et du Développement social peut-il expliquer comment le budget revoit cette mauvaise décision pour avantager les Canadiennes et Canadiens?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 13:26 on April 20, 2016

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2016-04-19 17:35 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr qp tv |

2016-04-20 16:40 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.